Mon Jan 20 15:39:01 1997
From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 15:39:01 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA08715; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:37:47 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <32E3C8B2.1D21@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 14:36:02 -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: 4651
I fear this discussion is going downhill, so I will try to clarify
anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic....
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>> 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.
I'm not sure I see the point. I *don't* consider it part of the
autograph -- but I say so on the basis of manuscripts. Literary
criticism plays no part.
I suppose you could argue that those who reject Mark 16:9-20
do so on literary grounds ("it doesn't match Mark's style").
I suppose even I am influenced by that... but I *also* note
that it is omitted by the earliest Alexandrians, is marked
with doubts in the best "Caesareans" (fam 1), and is not found
in the two most important "Westerns" (k sin).
>> 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!
I detect sarcasm here. (Obviously it's not too hard to spot.)
I fail to see why. Why *should* textual critics step outside
their discipline?
Would you want me, as a physicist and/or a folk musician, to lecture
you about theology? I assume not. Why, then, would you want a literary
critic telling you how to conduct textual criticism?
[ ... ]
>> > 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.
All right. It's not *my* viewpoint, but it can certainly be argued
for. What value, if any, would you place on the further stages of
the redaction? And what is the value of the final recension from
which all manuscripts are derived? Is there one? Does the fact
that the church placed its faith in the final product have any
influence?
And, as you work to reconstruct this hypothetical autograph,
what role do you want textual critics to play? I confess to being
utterly confused.
>>
>> 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.
Who says the earliest witness is Bodmer? The earliest witness is
probably Ignatius. Then p52, and Justin Martyr, and p66 and
Irenaeus and.... Some of these are easier to use than others --
but they are all *witnesses*.
But why do you say that "single manuscript" (and I'm not sure whether
you mean here the Aramaic or the Greek) is any more accessible to the
literary than the textual critic?
>>
>> >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.
Or parchment, or paper -- or ostraca for that matter. I'm not built
to play speculative games.
And my apologies to the folks who think this discussion is getting
really bullheaded. You're right; it is. When I hear this kind of
talk, my scientific side tends to take over....
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back