Fri Jan 24 15:14:02 1997
From owner-tc-list Fri Jan 24 15:14:02 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA21530; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:12:51 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <199701241726.SAA36826@mail.uni-muenster.de>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:48:00 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Who practices TC (Was: Re: The function of TC)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5212
If it is true that there are more people practicing Biblical than
classical textual criticism (and I honestly don't know), I think
it's easy to see the reason: Demand.
There is a large demand for a "Better Bible." For the most part
that expresses itself in a call for new translations, but it
also fuels a demand for texts.
By contrast, there is little demand for texts of, say, the Iliad.
Yes, there are thousands of copies sold each year, but they pay
little attention to textual issues. Of the three modern translations
of the Iliad in my library, one doesn't even say which edition
it's translated from and the other two are both from the Oxford
text. Neither shows real interest in textual criticism (one lists
the places where it differs from the Oxford text; there are eight
of them. That is all it says about textual issues).
It could also be argued that NT TC is *easier* than classical
TC. Despite all we hear on this list about literary criticism
and the like, NT scholars for the most part just adopt readings
found in their favorite manuscripts. Only when those manuscripts
divide do they have to really *think*.
Now I have no objection to not having to think; my method of
textual criticism is perhaps the most mechanical on the list.
But even I will concede that you can't practice mechanical
textual criticism on Beowulf, or Tacitus, or Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight, or The Seven Against Thebes, all of which
are extant only in single copies. (And in the case of Beowulf,
even the single copy is now almost unreadable....) In this
instances one has to sit down, study the text, look for
problems, and then find useful solutions. It's not easy....
Ulrich Schmid brings up another interesting point when he
mentions symphonies. I don't think classical music is the
best example of this, but folk music is. There are a lot
of songs which were originally published as what we know
in the ballad trade as "broadside ballads." (The name has
to do with the appearance of the publication.) Often the
originals of these have been lost, and they exist only in
later broadsides or in songs sung in oral tradition. Ballad
scholars often try to reconstruct these texts -- and, since
there are millions of people around the world who listen
to traditional folk music, and thousands of people who
sing it, that means that there are thousands of people trying
to find the original texts of those broadsides. Their numbers,
arguably, exceed those of practicing textual critics.
For that matter, some of us (me, to be specific :-) practice both.
(BTW -- I see that DC Parker has also mentioned folk songs. As you
can probably tell, I disagree with him slightly on this point. For
most songs you cannot establish a definitive traditional text, but
for some -- e.g. those where we know there was an official original
publication, even if we don't have the broadsheet -- you can do
so.)
Andrew Smith wrote specifically:
>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."
Given the immense theological importance of some NT variants, I
think that there *is* a difference. When one deals with a literature
one considers "inspired," one always tries to make it as "true" as
possible, even if the evidence is against you.
Case in point: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (concerning women being silent in
church). These verses are embarrassing to moderns, since they are
so obviously sexist. We'd like to be rid of them.
And, indeed, we see Gordon D. Fee (I think it was) arguing to
omit them, simply because they are found after verse 40 in D F G it.
If it weren't for the fact that we dislike the verses so much,
no one would argue for their removal.
I'm sure other examples could be found.
Smith again:
>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.
OK, I'll buy that -- but I, at least, practice textual criticism in
any arena where it's interesting. That includes NTTC, folk music TC,
and anything else where I can get my hands on the resources (e.g. I
*do* have a text-critical edition of "Beowulf," and also one of
"The Dream of the Rood").
I do this for no other reason than the joy of it; I have no expectation
of getting anything published in the area of NTTC, and my work in folk
music, while it's published on the Internet (and not by me!), will
likely never see its way to print.
Blatant self-promotional mode off. :-)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
Back