Mon Jan 20 16:41:38 1997
From owner-tc-list Mon Jan 20 16:41:38 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id QAA09424; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:40:12 -0500
Message-ID: <32E3E794.14E5@accesscomm.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:45:57 -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: 5968
Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
> I fear this discussion is going downhill, so I will try to clarify
> anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic....
Why is it going downhill? I have gained some insight from it.
>
> 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 was looking for the level at which textual criticism ends and
literary criticism begins.
>
> 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?
Not a BIT of sarcasm. I am merely qualifying that TC's
work with the factual and extant texts. Why are you looking for
an attitude that does not exist?
>
> 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?
I wouldn't, Bob...I am defining, for my own edification, the
boundaries of textual criticism vs literary criticism from your
perspective.
Why does that offend you?
>
> >> > 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?
The value I place on it is the understanding how theology
and christology developed between the "original text" and the final
product.
>
> 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*.
I understand that, Bob...but P52 is just a scrap.
>
> 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?
You made it clear that Textual critics work only with the existing
manuscripts. An Aramaic reconstruction of "proto-John" does not exist,
therefore it lies within the realm of speculation from a literary
standpoint.
> >> >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, I am also a scientist...you are taking offense and reading
"bullheadedness" where it does not exist. I was looking for
illumination
from the TC's viewpoint, not argument.
Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net
Back