Fri Jan 17 14:05:19 1997
From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 17 14:05:19 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA13539; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:04:33 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <32DFA7B4.322E@accesscomm.net>
References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:50 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Re: Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1428
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue. It is
>one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books
>of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata
>between it's "autograph" and the form now extant. Speculating the
>probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee
>and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd
>century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the
>goal for recovery by textual criticism?
This viewpoint troubles me. Given that John has suffered some
editing (Chapter 21 being the obvious example), I don't believe
there will ever be consensus reached on *how many* hands contributed
which parts.
Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including
chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is
a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for
literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at
all, which I consider questionable.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
Back