Re: [GTh] Criticisms and the name 'Iesous'
- Re: textual criticism, "concerned with establishing the original text of a document"[Bob Schacht]:
criticism: That is,> IIRC, you've left out an important part of the concept of textual
manuscript is [?] own> when they say "original," they MEAN original. That is, the
you're thinking of,> physical self, not our transliterated version of the mss. What
am suggesting that you have> I think, is an idealized transliteration of the text. ... I
mean by "original".> something different in mind than the textual critics usuallyPerhaps so, but your reasoning has me buffaloed*, Bob, since I wasn't thinkingof "an idealized transliteration of the text", whatever that might be. I was simplythinking in terms of getting some idea of what the Greek or Syriac original ofThomas might have looked like, based on what was done to it in the Coptic version.Now that may not fall under the category of textual criticism, and if so, I'd like toknow, but in any case, I don't see what difference it makes whether we representthe hypothetical contents of a missing original manuscript as source-languageligatures or transliteration.Mike Grondin(*clever allusion to "Buffalo Bob" Smith of Howdy Doody fame, for us oldsters :-)