Fri Jan 24 13:28:02 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 24 13:28:02 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA20431; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:26:33 -0500
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:22:18 -0500 (EST)
From: ANDREW SMITH 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: The function of TC
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2313


On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> Are we talking about the same subject? Textual criticism applies to
> *all* ancient texts, though the form is different. E.g. Beowulf
> and Tacitus exist only in single manuscripts (there are actually two mss.
> of Tacitus, but they don't overlap). Obviously there TC consists only
> of looking for aberrant readings and attempting to emend them.

I agree: TC is for all texts - and that's my point - why is such a large
proportion of TC devoted to religious texts?

> But TC, as applied to the NT, also applies to works like the Iliad
> (which exists in hundreds of manuscripts). And I have, on my
> shelf, a critical text of Josephus.

If one compares the volume of work being done on the Iliad vs. the amount
of TC being done on the NT - say, by strolling through a university
library, or by comparing the number of scholars employed in the respective
endevours - the asymetry becomes apparent.

> Consider, too, that one of the most-quoted thinkers in the history
> of TC was A.E. Housman, who worked on classical texts.

Happily granted

> For that matter, I might point out that I was not brought up
> Christian, and have at times practiced New Testament TC from
> the agnostic's standpoint. You don't have to be Christian to
> enjoy TC; it merely gives you more motivation (and, arguably,
> distorts your viewpoint on some issues. IMHO, TC should be
> approached without a religious bias).

Is there a difference between a "religious bias" and a "religious
motivation"? By choosing a text as an object of study, one makes the
judgement that this text is worth studying. Many TC scholars offer a
distinctly anti-Christian perspective on the NT - but that's still a
religious perspective. I agree, TC should be done without "bias."

> As for who is a better writer -- if you've ever read
> Suetonius, you'll realize that he's a lot better read
> than the Vulgate. It may just be gossip -- certainly
> I won't claim it's Higher Truth -- but at least it's
> not boring.

Perhaps I didn't express myself well. I was attempting to say that most TC
scholars are interested in religion (although they don't realize this
fact), because they choose to work on sacred texts (note: not limited to
Christianity) and ignore other equally interesting non-religious texts.

Back