Mon Jan 20 11:55:11 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 11:55:11 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA05015; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:54:26 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <32E398EC.4F03@accesscomm.net>
References: <1.5.4.16.19970116150701.0c473ef8@mail.sunbelt.net>
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:53:40 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3268

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon  wrote, quoting
me:

[ ... ]

>> 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.

Reconstructing the "original autograph" of John may be interesting
as a literary exercise (it's of little interest to me, but that's
my personal pejudice).

But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct
the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my
knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit
Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on
such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the
first twenty chapters.

Please, don't confuse speculative criticism -- of any sort --
with textual criticism.

If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's
fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without
16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't
work on John without chapter 21!

>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.

Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages
of redaction, which is "the autograph"?

It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single
manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct.

>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.

Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact,
I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead
to bias.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back