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

Basic definitions question

Expand Messages
  • Steve Raine
    Hello all-- I m new to the group. Are these accurate definitions? TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close as is
    Message 1 of 30 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Hello all--

      I'm new to the group.

      Are these accurate definitions?


      TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.

      Source criticism--textual studies to identify different segments/parts and their respective original periods/authors.

      Redaction criticism--studies to determine if text is a product of compilation or combination from multiple sources.


      Thanks,
      Steve Raine

       

      from around 150 CE. Please note that I did not say that this is also the
      original text, it is just one text.
      Petersen is wrong when he writes that the pre-180 text "was very different
      from the text we now find in our critical editions". The evidence on which
      he bases his argumentation is dubious (Justin etc.).
      What happened between 80 and 150 CE we do not know. Justin used some kind of
      text that was different from the text of the four Gospels we know today, but
      this does not mean that our text did not exist, but only that Justin used
      some other text. Perhaps he was quoting from a catechetic manual that was in
      use in his community.
      Also I think Petersen's title "What Text Can Textual Criticism Ultimately
      Reach?" is misleading. What he is doing with Justin is IMHO not textual
      criticism. If you want to reconstruct the text of the Gospel of John, you
      have to make sure first that the texts you are using ARE actually from the
      Gospel of John. For Justin it is not clear what he is quoting. I think this
      belongs more into source or redaction criticism.



      Best wishes
          Wieland
             <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html







      SPONSORED LINKS
      Bible theology Theology Christianity


      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





    • Dr P.J. Williams
      ... TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording to say
      Message 2 of 30 , Jan 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Are these accurate definitions?
        >
        >
        > TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close
        > as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.

        TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original
        text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording
        to say that it aims 'to produce, as closely as is possible/practicable,
        the text of the autograph'. To produce the autograph itself would involve
        reassembling atoms long-since dispersed.

        Regards,

        Pete
      • James M. Leonard
        Martin Hengel protests against the direction which some are tacking tc, breaking down disciplinary borders: Here no sufficiently clear distinction is made
        Message 3 of 30 , Jan 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          Martin Hengel protests against the direction which some are tacking tc, breaking down disciplinary borders: > >

          >  >

          "Here no sufficiently clear distinction is made between textual criticism, which is founded on the uniquely broad manuscript tradition of the text in antiquity, and modern literary criticism, which investigates behind the text that has been handed down and thus seeks to clarify the origin of the works of New Testament literature which came into being before the manuscript tradition which has come down to us, but as a rule works in a much more hypothetical way than textual criticism, which is based solely on textual evidence and above all on manuscripts.

          >  >

          "K. and B. Aland have given a convincing description of the task and methods of textual criticism, i.e., of the most thoroughgoing restoration possible of the original text.  The borderline between literary criticism and textual criticism runs right through the decisive point at which the Gospels 'begin their literary existence through copies', i.e. from the time when they were deliberately disseminated.  'It [textual criticism] has no access to what there was before this.'  That is the field of literary criticism, with what today are often abundant hypotheses which can no longer be verified; this has become all too much a favourite child of New Testament scholarship" (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 30).

          >  >

          Hengel goes on to specifically mention Eldon J. Epp's watershed article, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' HTR 92, 245-81 and Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, of which he is dismissive.

           

           

          Jim Leonard

          Southwestern Pennsylvania


          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Dr P.J. Williams" <p.j.williams@a...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > > Are these accurate definitions?
          > >
          > >
          > > TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close
          > > as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.
          >
          > TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original
          > text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording
          > to say that it aims 'to produce, as closely as is possible/practicable,
          > the text of the autograph'. To produce the autograph itself would involve
          > reassembling atoms long-since dispersed.
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Pete
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.