Sat Jan 25 13:10:48 1997
From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 25 13:10:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA27913; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:09:53 -0500
Message-Id: <199701251805.TAA107264@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 97 20:17:21 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2536
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote:
> Well, of course it's simply not true that there were never "real"
>scribes who simply copied one verse here or there rather than an entire
>manuscript. Any church father quoting a solitary verse or two did
>precisely this -- and sometimes, as we have reason to believe, they
>actually consulted an exemplar before doing so; moreover, there were
>amulets, etc. with very small portions of scripture on them, copied just
>for the purpose. So I'm not sure that I see your point.
Well, the point is that I'm still thinking about one of your initial statements
in the light of my own experience with MSS and scribal activities: "I guess
maybe one difference could be that scribes _are_ (how's that?) able to reproduce
exactly what they inherit in their exemplars..." (Bart Ehrman). Therefore, I'm
particularly happy to subscribe to the following:
>Of course it's not absolutely impossible for a scribe to reproduce a text
>accurately; it's just extremely difficult for long texts.
In fact, I never "met" a scribe who, after testing his product over a span of
lets say three or four pages, did not produce some results presumably not to the
credit of the exemplar he reproduced (orthographicals, itacisms, slips, etc.).
For what ever reason (regional dialects, lack of vigorous orthographical
standards, etc.), apart from majour textual variant readings, no scribe seemed
to have "reproduced exactly what he inherited in his exemplar". These are the
facts as I'm familiar with them, still waiting for counter-examples from real
scribes producing real MSS copies.
Now, why the emphasis on REAL scribes and copies? I still maintain the
difference between copying texts and writing new texts. Copying texts
includes at least the intention of reproducing given textual units without
conciously altering their shape so that the copy can virtually replace the
exemplar that it was copied from. Therfore, "scribes who simply copied one
verse here or there rather than an entire manuscript" are writing new texts,
IMHO. The same goes for "any church father quoting a solitary verse or two",
"amulets, etc."
> BTW, are you saying that John 1:1 by itself is not a "real" text? If
>so, then I'd like to know what you yourself understand a text to be.
Well, John 1:1 is at least part of a "real" text. I was just wondering if it
belongs to the same categories of "real" texts, i.e. subjected to the same
aspects of copying as outlined above.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back