Mon Jan 20 01:06:41 1997
From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 01:06:41 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA01685; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:05:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:05:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: "Original" text???
In-Reply-To: <199701172211.RAA32410@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 3884
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, William Petersen wrote:
> Here is the crux: while we have textual
> evidence for many of these, I know of no method by which on can determine
> what the "official" or "last" edition of a particular author was. And while
> I can numerically determine that "this" (and not "that") text was "the text
> that lies behind the *dominant* textual tradition" (to quote Jimmy Adair),
> we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text
I wasn't specific enough on what I meant by the "dominant textual
tradition." When two (or more) significantly different forms of the text
exist (e.g., Samuel MT and LXX, Jeremiah MT and LXX, the two versions of
Acts, Daniel MT and LXX/Th, Esther MT and LXX), the dominant tradition is
that which was most widely accepted (of course, in the case of Daniel and
Esther, it depends on church/synagogue affiliation). Maybe the term
"dominant text-form" would better express what I meant. I don't consider
the Byzantine text to be a different textual tradition (text-form) from
the Alexandrian, despite their numerous differences, since I don't see any
evidence of extensive, systematic revision--and I wouldn't consider
recensional activity to be the same as a revision aimed at supplementing
(or correcting) the text. Of course, the lines can be hard to draw at
times, but my impression is that Jeremiah MT represents an intentional
updating of the Hebrew Vorlage that lies behind the LXX, whereas the
Byzantine text-type in the NT reflects more of a natural development, with
perhaps some recensional activity as well. Another point: I just
suggested that the Vorlage of the dominant textual tradition was _one_
possible goal of t-c. The non-dominant traditions could just as readily
be investigated.
> ...[discussion of Luke 3:22]
> The answer is not hard to come by. The longer text is not rejected because
> it lacks early and authoritative textual support, becuase it does. The
> reason it has not been adopted as the standard text is because it was not in
> Erasmus's edition, it was not in the TR, and does not agree with Christian
> theology since, oh, say, 300 CE or so... Theology and the influence of the
> "authoritative" editions (Vulgate, Erasmus, TR, etc.)--regardless of their
> merits--are more determinative than the evidence. There's nothing wrong
> with that, but let's be up front about it.
Now this is an interesting claim. I suspect that most eclectics would
dispute the claim that the longer reading ("today I have begotten you")
has _authoritative_ textual support, since D is the only Greek witness.
Do you think, Bill, that theology (and authoritative editions) comes into
play on a case by case basis, or does it rather manifest itself in the
overall theory used by most eclectics (e.g., the preference for a Greek
witness over a versional or patristic witness, no matter how early)? If
the latter were the case, one could argue that, generally speaking, more
"orthodox" readings are present in Greek mss than in the versions or
Fathers because, since Greek continuous-text mss were the textual basis
for the doctrine of the church, the Greek mss were more consistently
revised toward the beliefs of the leaders of "orthodoxy" than were the
other witnesses. I would like to see more evidence that specific textual
decisions are made on the basis of currently acceptable theological
positions, at least a list of passages to consider. By the way, in
addition to the New Jerusalem Bible, both Moffatt and Goodspeed
(apparently) adopt the longer reading, although Goodspeed softens the
adoptionistic language with his translation, "You are my Chosen!"
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
Back