[B-Greek] Getting it written the way the author intended
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Aug 23 07:00:11 EDT 2008
Honestly, I don't insist on having the last word; I readily concede
that there are alternative views. I just want to be sure that anything
I have said doesn't get misunderstood.
On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins wrote:
> When I responded to Carl's comment about the unsupervised use of an
> amanuensis, I said that it would always provide an easier
> explanation to any argument that I (or anyone else, including
> Leonard) could possibly offer to justify a solecism. But that does
> open a Pandora's box which probably goes far beyond the constraints
> of b-greek. For example, we might infer that the autograph is not
> really so in the truest sense of the term, but is just a fallible
> transcript of what the author has said, and ought to have "dictated
> but not read" at the bottom. In the case of Revelation, we might
> conclude that John picked a rather poor amanuensis, and our job in
> part is to reconstruct the book, which was already done to some
> degree in late manuscripts. Then again we would not really know
> whether a solecism was the fault of the amanuensis, or the actual
> dictation of the author. In many cases, as suggested below, we would
> also have to factor in aural confusion over vowels (e.g. O/W) and
> anything else susceptible to misunderstanding. True, we do that in
> textual criticism, but the goal there always is to reconstruct the
> autograph. If the autograph is a fallible transcript, then we might
> not have any reason to be meticulous in its reconstruction. Indeed,
> some scholars have said that we really do not know what has happened
> in the copying processes, so we should simply change the text to
> what makes the most sense.
If by "autograph" we mean the earliest form of a Biblical text to be
"published" in the sense of being brought before an audience, I'm all
for what the text-critics are after: I do want to have as clear a
notion as possible of what the original author intended to say. Of
course ancient literature, supposedly up to the time of St. Ambrose of
Milan in the 4th century, was written for and intended for a listening
audience rather than a silent reader. What we want to know, I guess,
is; what was the form of a text read aloud to the first listeners?
> I don't want to exaggerate the situation; even if the autographs are
> unreviewed transcripts, the great majority of the time there is
> really no doubt as to what the author is saying, provided that we
> are talking about actual dictation. Some scholars have gone so far
> as to suggest that the NT authors told their amanuenses, "I want to
> say such-and-such, now you go write it down and I'll sign it,"
> meaning that the actual words really are the amanuensis's and not
> those of the author. If that were the case, then it might lower the
> finer points we discuss in b-greek to the level of trivia, though we
> would still enjoy them for love of the language.
>
> It seems to come down in large part to what we assume about the
> author's attitude toward his own work. As Carl said, if the author
> is dashing off something like a quick email, then the solecisms are
> most likely errors on his part; i.e. we should use our good friend
> Occam's razor. In the case of Revelation, absent supernatural aid to
> John's memory, we can easily imagine him writing down the visions as
> fast as he can so as not to lose or miss anything. Then if we assume
> that he did not bother to review his work, it follows that any
> solecism is most likely an error due to haste. His use of an
> amanuensis would further complicate the situation. Thankfully in b-
> greek we do analysis for the sheer love of the language, so we don't
> have to worry about such issues.
I don't "dash off a quick email" or try not to. Whenever I've done
anything that could be so described, I have usually regretted it
almost immediately. I do try to take care to say what I really mean in
a form that can be understood, and that's not the easiest thing in the
world to do. But anyone who has written and revised and rewritten a
piece for publication knows that it's almost impossible for one to
proofread one's own work. I was appalled at the state of my original
typed doctoral dissertation and very much pleased to have the
opportunity several years later to submit it to a thorough re-writing.
Revision and editing for publication, at any rate, is surely a very
different process for us today than it was for an author writing for
the earliest Christian communities. Whether an author wrote down the
text for himself or dictated his text to an amanuensis, I should think
that the obstacles to "getting the written text right" in antiquity
would hardly have been less and almost surely greater than those
confronted by a modern writer.
> I'll close with apologies to Carl for responding again when I told
> him privately that I was willing to consider the thread closed. Also
> I want to compliment him for the work of art he provided to b-greek
> as a response to my previous arguments, and I'm glad that a glitch
> in my email system compelled him to post it publicly. Also, I
> confess to him that no, I have not as yet read the work of
> Phrynichos of Bithynia, but I have greatly enjoyed the way
> Aristophanes plays with the language, and based on Carl's
> recommendation I will put Phrynichos on my agenda.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list