Mon Jan 20 02:49:08 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 02:49:08 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id CAA02276; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 02:48:01 -0500
From: "Mirkovic, Alexander" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: The Original Text
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:45:37 -0500 (EST)
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.9
X-Authentication: none
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: 3215

Dear List,

It has been a real pleasure to read all your comments and 
discussions. In light of  the recent discussion on the 
"original text" I've decided to write something of my own. 
I am a Ph. D. student at Vanderbilt in New Testament with a 
strong interest, aside from my major area, in Classical 
Studies. My interests are in Johannine studies and Gospel 
studies in general, Gnosticism, Hellenistic Literature, 
Religion, and Culture, and, of course, Greek language and 
textual criticism.
	Following on the previous discussion, I believe 
that it is not wise to make a very sharp distinction 
between literary and textual criticism. John is a good 
example, as well as, Romans, Mark, etc. John 7:53-11 is not 
part of many manuscripts. Is it a part of the "original 
text?" The dilemma is: to print it, or not to print it? NA 
is wise in this regard, because it chooses to put it in 
brackets. The same holds for the endings of Mark. The 
interpretation changes, if these passages are included and 
it changes substantially. It is necessary to have all the 
available data in front of us and read the text in many 
possible ways. If it is in the manuscript tradition, 
somebody thought that this is meaningful. We have to have 
the opportunity to cut both ways!
	Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be 
useful here. There is no original text! Every text is 
"intertextual." Think of Derrida and the idea of 
logocentrism! Authorial intention (a logocentric idea) and 
the "original text" are connected: they are our 
idealizations. Writing dissertations and academic papers 
comes to mind. When I write, I usually have several 
versions in the computer. Which one is the "original 
version." Probably, the one that I have submitted. This 
means that the "original text" is "proclaimed" by an 
outside authority, not the author. New Testament texts are 
products of their authors and their readers, early 
Christians. Early Christian communities have decided for us 
which are the "original texts," but they have also 
produced many "original texts." I write in plural, because 
all of the variants were "original" for somebody, 
somewhere, at some point in time. Reception of the text is 
as much important as the author. What was the "original 
text" of John for one community, must not have been the 
"original" for another community.
	Therefore, I would define TC as a study of the 
manuscript tradition which aims to establish relationships 
between variant readings. If the study shows that all the 
variant stem from one single manuscript, that is fine. 
But this is not the "original,"  just the earliest version 
available. I am not an "eclectic" and I am for 
constructing the stem for the manuscripts if this is 
possible, but we should be aware that the stem speaks more 
about relationships, than about the "original."

I wish that we could deconstruct this cold weather as well!
Greetings!
Alexander

*************************************************
Alexander Mirkovic
Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek
Vanderbilt University
Graduate Department of Religion
Email: mirkova1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Phone: (615) 421-8331
*************************************************

Back