Mon Jan 20 11:06:30 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 11:06:30 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA04521; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:04:46 -0500
Message-ID: <32E398EC.4F03@accesscomm.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:10:20 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Original Text
References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2942

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 
> 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.)

	Then you are saying an attempt to reconstruct the original
autograph of the GJohn is not a legitimate object of textual criticism
and, in fact, is a questionable matter not worthy of study?  The
object of my message was the interpretation of "original text" as
defined in TC.

James R. Adair wrote:

 
> I agree with Bob on this point.  Text critics are only interested in the
> form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of
> which we have no extant evidence of circulation).  When two (or
> more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are
> legitimate object of text-critical study.  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.  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).  In addition, the process of transmission itself
> will have been mapped (Jean Valentin).

	But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of
the text" (the autograph) is not important to study.  If text critics
are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the
case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does
not tell us much about the theological and christological developments
textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early
2nd century.

	I'm not debating the point, I am merely trying to get a handle
on the textual critic's "official" definition of "original text."

Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net

Back