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

Re: tc-list The Living Text

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.