Mon Jan 20 09:49:54 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 09:49:54 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA03920; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:48:22 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:47:18 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: The Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3880

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, "Mirkovic, Alexander" 
wrote:

[ ... ]

Let me second Hurtado's comment in response to this letter: We need to
take a deep breath before responding. But, having done that, and read
the rest of my mail, I *still* feel the need to respond.

>	Following on the previous discussion, I believe 
>that it is not wise to make a very sharp distinction 
>between literary and textual criticism.

This statement I simply cannot accept. There is an unequivocal
and undeniable distinction between the two.

Textual criticism is one of the few Biblical disciplines based
upon FACTS -- the facts being the readings of the manuscripts.
We may disagree about the significance and interpretation of
these facts, but the facts themselves do not change.

Literary criticism, on the other hand, is purely interpretation.
There is no objective way to tell it from idle speculation.

You may, if you wish, bring textual criticism into literary
criticism. But if you bring literary criticism into textual
criticism, you inevitable move from the realm of the objective
into the realm of the subjective.

Don't do it! The goal should be to make textual criticism more
objective, not less.

[ ... ]

>	Some post-modern theory (deconstruction) might be 
>useful here. There is no original text!

Surely you do not mean this. There was an original text (possibly,
in a few cases, multiple original texts. But always a finite set).
That original text *has not survived* in any known manuscript.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>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.

You mean *I'm* allowed to tell you which is the correct version
of your dissertation? Somehow I doubt you'd be happy if I were
to do so....

>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.

Have you considered the implications of this? What you are saying
is that -- any time *anyone* makes a copying error, it is scripture.
If I were to copy a Biblical passage and write into it, "God is
an illusion of inferior minds," would you accept that as scripture?
Surely not!

>	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 agree, in the sense that we can never be sure of the original
text. I cannot take this view that we therefore *give up.*
Even if we cannot be sure we have the original text, we can
certainly seek for the earliest surviving text.

My apologies to the rest of the list for this rant-and-rave.
The physicist in me strikes again, no doubt. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back