Subject: tc-list no original?

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:35:12 -0400 (EDT)

I hope that those who know better can hel*p me with a difficulty I am
having.  In David Parker's book he suggests that the object of TC is not to
recover the original text; but to investigate the development of the text in
its various manifestations.  (I hope I have that right).
My difficulty arises when I imagine Paul sitting at a table or pacing the
floor and dictating to Silas or someone else.  The end product- Romans.  If
I understand David correctly our object is not to recover that text, but to
rediscover the path that text has taken.

My question- do we then disregard what Paul wrote; or is it so irrecoverable
that it is simply a waste of time to look for it?  Does interest then shift
to scribal activity and away from the intention of the author?  Can we, in
fact, even speak anymore of authorial intention or do we simply adopt the
perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue?

Thanks for helping me see the light.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:52:32 -0700 (PDT)

> perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue?

Jim,

I think your question points out why there is a definite distinction
between text critics and redaction critics.  May I shift from Paul to the
Gospels to make the point?  Many of the redaction critics would tell you
that, e.g., all of Mt 25 is a redaction, or those in the Jesus Seminar
that their group is on record for concluding that some 92% of the
teaching/discourse verses of Mark did not, or probably did not, stem from
the mouth of Jesus. So how could text critics possibly claim to be
attempting to recover the text of an (or the) original Gospel author who
was writing the truth?  Only by rejecting the redaction critics'
conclusions could they claim that, and that then leads to a polarization
between the two groups.  I gather that this is a prevailing view, or the
view of the "reader-oriented" text critic.

On the other hand, the text critic can point out that the redaction
critics cannot, for the most part, agree on just which verses/pericopes
are historical and which are not.  So what sense does it make through
textual analysis of manuscripts to claim any more than an attempt to
recover the text as it was in mid-2nd century, say, or after being penned
by the respective evangelists who identities may not have been
Matthew,...? The redaction critics and the text critics with this view can
coexist peaceably and exchange helpful information in areas where their
interests overlap, though which redaction critic is the text critic to
trust? 

Jim Deardorff

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:32:43 +000

David Parker can best account for his own views on aims of NT TC.  
But many of us would affirm that the discipline has had and continues 
validly to have at least three broad aims:
--to seek to recover the earliest available form(s) of the text of 
the NT writings;
--to trace the history of the transmission of the NT text (I fit 
within the camp that sees this as a necessary part of the previous 
aim, as well as being a perfectly valid aim on its own);
--to contribute to the integration of the textual history of the NT 
with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal 
history).
Contra Jim Deardorff, redaction-criticism has *nothing* to do with 
the question.  Redaction-criticism has to do with the relation 
between the final editor/author and any tradition used/appropriated 
by him/him.  Textual criticism has to do with the transmission of 
what the editor/author produced.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT)

> with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal 

These I also see as valid goals of TC.  Where the misunderstanding arose
is that Jim West wondered about recovering the "original text:" what does
that refer to?  (a) Does it include reference to NT gospel texts only
*after* their editors/evangelists had done with them?  Or (b) can it refer
to recovering earlier text upon which the first gospel was based?  Only
the latter has relevance if one desires to know what it was that Jesus
taught.  Should or does TC have any interest in that?  Perhaps Dr. West
was only referring to text of type (a), however. 

This kind of question was also raised by Robert Waltz re Jeremiah, e.g.,
as to what should TC try to reconstruct: the MT, the LXX or some earlier
"original word?"

> what the editor/author produced.
 
But if the question concerns (b) above, then redaction criticism is of
course all important.  Even then, however, such exegesis relies upon
textual criticism to supply the best text (reconstruction of earliest
canonical text) upon which to apply redaction criticism. 

It seems that the distinction between (a) and (b) needs to be made clear
in questions of this type. 

Jim Deardorff