Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list The Living Text

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Regarding the discussion about what an autograph is and in view of Parkers Living Text of the Gospels : If we depart from trying to reconstruct the
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Regarding the discussion about what an autograph is and in view of Parkers
      "Living Text of the Gospels":
      If we depart from trying to reconstruct the autographs, what is the end
      result? If we simply try to establish the diversity of readings? Each
      variant represented the text of the Gospel for some group at some point.
      Have they all the same value then?
      Is this leading people to say: I believe in Codex B! - No, I'm a
      Sinaiticus-man!
      Should all early readings (definition!) be placed with equal weighting side
      by side in the NT? Will the new NA-28 look more like Swanson? Do we have the
      choice to choose readings, both THE WORD OF GOD?
      Haven't thought about that before, interesting. Is this a new TC paradigm?

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
    • U.B.Schmid
      ... The concept of autograph within NT textual scholarship should be trated with caution, because it supports anachronistic and naive views of the task of
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Wieland Willker wrote:
        > Regarding the discussion about what an autograph is and in view of Parkers
        > "Living Text of the Gospels":
        > If we depart from trying to reconstruct the autographs, what is the end
        > result?

        The concept of "autograph" within NT textual scholarship should be trated with
        caution, because it supports anachronistic and naive views of the task of our
        discipline.
        In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the textual
        history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting point of a
        textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*. Whenever there is a
        textual transmission, it is legitimate, in fact necessary, to ask for it's
        archetype. However, for a lot of texts from antiquity the archetype doesn't
        necessarily equal the autograph. This is especially true for texts which have
        been transmitted through intermediary genres, such as collections of all sorts,
        e.g., letter collections, collections of excerpts (epitomai), medical
        prescriptions and diagnoses, laws, oracles, etc. Sometimes, the textual history
        points back to a collective archetype. And, the quest for the autograph of every
        single item within the collection requires new orientation.
        If we follow the textual history of texts back to their off-spring, we should be
        careful to not somehow "naturally" expect to face "autographs" behind the last
        turn of the journey.

        ------------------------------------------
        Dr. Ulrich Schmid
        U.B.Schmid@...
      • Wieland Willker
        ... point ... 1. What is your definition of a) autograph and b) archetype? 2. How would you handle the edition of the GNT (pocket-edition) when there are
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 4, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Ulrich Schmid wrote:
          > In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the
          > textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting
          point
          > of a textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*.

          1. What is your definition of
          a) autograph and
          b) archetype?

          2. How would you handle the edition of the GNT (pocket-edition) when there
          are readings of "equal weighting"?

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------
          Wieland Willker
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html
        • U.B.Schmid
          ... The archetype is the starting point of a textual transmission. It s the last step you can reach when you try to find your way back through the extant
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 4, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Wieland Willker wrote:
            > Ulrich Schmid wrote:
            > > In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the
            > > textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting
            > point
            > > of a textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*.
            >
            > 1. What is your definition of
            > a) autograph and
            > b) archetype?

            The archetype is the starting point of a textual transmission. It's the last
            step you can reach when you try to find your way back through the extant copies
            of given texts.
            Concerning definition of autograph I can't really tell. I do think, however,
            that the notion of autograph has something to do with the author of a text,
            pointing to a version he or she wrote down or dictated and approved.

            Within the realm of NT textual transmission the concept of autograph is very
            tricky to handle. Let's take, e.g., the Pauline epistles. In all likelyhood the
            letter to the Romans was sent to Rome as an individual text (possibly a single
            scroll). The physical reminders of the textual tradition of the Letter to the
            Romans, however, bears every sign of belonging to joint edition(s): Codex
            format, more than just the individual letter in one manuscript, superscripts and
            subscripts. Let's put it boldly: Does anybody really think that one of the
            versions of Romans found in GNT, NA-27, Von Soden, or Tischendorf has a chance
            to go back to the version that was sent to Rome? If we just consider the
            superscript "To the Romans" found in all the mentioned editions, we will
            immediately realize that critical editions don't pretend to go back to the
            letter that was sent ot the Romans, even if editors sometimes do. Critical
            editions just as probably every single piece of Romans' papyrus/parchment go
            back to collections of Pauline letters. It is not entirely clear, how many
            collections existed and how many of those have contributed to the textual
            transmission of the Pauline Corpus. It is, however, reasonably clear that more
            than one collection was involved. We don't know where, when and through whom the
            collections have been made. Moreover, we don't know how faithfully the various
            collections have preserved the individual letters.
            To sum up: There are quite a few intermediary stages within the textual
            transmission of the Pauline Corpus, some of which definitely contributed to
            confuse the whole story (contamination), that it seems utterly naive to assume
            the textual history of the Letter to the Romans will somehow naturally lead to
            as well as faithfully represent the version that Paul once sent to Rome - if
            that's what stands behind the notion of autograph.
            In my view, we should concentrate our efforts to clear up the archetype
            situation of the NT books, i.e. identifying, localizing, and reconstructing
            collections and subcollections, instead of taking the short-cut to the desk of
            Paul (or John, or Matthew, or...).

            > 2. How would you handle the edition of the GNT (pocket-edition) when there
            > are readings of "equal weighting"?

            I've not studied every single variation unit within the NT, especially not in
            the GNT pocket-edition, because this one tends to isolate information to the
            extend that it's not possible to study similar phenomena throughout a given
            text. What do you mean by "equal weighting"? The committee's "D"-ratings?

            ------------------------------------------
            Dr. Ulrich Schmid
            U.B.Schmid@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.