Mon Jan 20 14:30:25 1997

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jan 20 14:30:25 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA08079; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:28:32 -0500
Message-ID: <32E3C8B2.1D21@accesscomm.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:34:10 -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: 3799

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 
>
> 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).

	That's understandable.
> 
> 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.

	Now I see what you mean.  When and IF an early form of John
is found (perhaps a complete Egerton) without the appendage of 21,
THEN it becomes a tool of the textual critic.  TC's work only with
what is extant. Would you recognize, however, that the absence of
GJohn 7:53-8:11 from all texts earlier than Bezae constitutes more
than speculation that it was not part of the autograph?  It is here,
I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic.

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

	Gotcha Bob..if'n it aint ink of paper...   :)

> 
> 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!

	Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha!

> 
> >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"?

	An early Aramaic narrative written by Johnny Zeb himself and
still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation.

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

	But only as far as the existing textual witnesses take you
which is no earlier than Bodmer?  The single manuscript from which
all mss of John arose, penned in Palestine, lies unreachable for
the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave
Asia Minor.

> 
> >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.

	I get your point, Bob.  It's gotta be on papyrus.


ATINA EAN GRAFHTAI KAQ EN.......

	Jack

Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net

Back