Fri Jan 17 16:55:11 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 17 16:55:11 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA16094; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:54:22 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:53:25 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Original Text
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970117155130.0b5737c8@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1290

Jimmy,
At 02:39 PM 1/17/97 -0500, you wrote:

>  If we can ever arrive at an 
>acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, 
>most of these issues will be solved.  

I think that this statement is right on the mark.  The question is, what
criteria can be used to develop such a consensus?

>Then people will be able to choose 
>which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the 
>earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of 
>the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies 
>behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT 
>or NT) (Emanuel Tov).

These three positions seem to be the major ones with minor variations tucked
alongside.  Is there any possibility that these three perspectives can be
harmonized? (or should I boldly, though jokingly say, is there any
possibility that the adherents of the other two views will come to recognize
that I am right?)  :)

>  In addition, the process of transmission itself 
>will have been mapped (Jean Valentin).
>

Which could and would serve a very useful "church history" function- as Bart
Ehrman has brilliantly shown.


Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

jwest@sunbelt.net

Back