tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post5279009594981597043..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The Dating Game I: PreliminariesMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-17879596636027936902008-10-07T11:11:00.000-04:002008-10-07T11:11:00.000-04:00To illustrate your point on "A Document's Evolutio...To illustrate your point on "A Document's Evolution", in your book, Questioning Q (p.81), you give a quote by Reginald H. Fuller from his book, The New Testament in Current Study (London, SCM, 1963). You list the quote as coming from p. 87.<BR/><BR/>It just so happens that I own a copy of this document. But, it was published in New York by Charles Scribner's Sons. In it, the quote is on p. 74 rather than p. 87.<BR/><BR/>Oddly, the year the version of the document I own was printed isn't listed. A copyright date of 1962 is listed. On the back cover, it has this sentence, "He is the author of The Foundations of New Testament Christology, published by Scribners in 1965."<BR/><BR/>In the preface, Fuller states, "This book consists of lectures delivered to clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church at the School of the Prophets, San Francisco, in June, 1960. Some of the chapters have been subsequently expanded,..."<BR/><BR/>The evolution of this particular document is rather murky. Did it begin as a loose collection of papers that were orally presented in lectures during June of 1960? If so, were they any precursors to any of these papers? Were these papers edited before being formally published as a book? What was the process by which the chapters were later "expanded"? Were all the "expansions" made in one version of the document or over the course of creating several versions of it? It's possible that the book I have and the book you used are the same version of the document, differing only in being published by two different publishers. However, it's also possible that they are different versions of the document--in which case, it is unclear as to which is the earlier version. The version you used was published in 1963, while mine wasn't published until later--1965 at the earliest. However, mine has a copyright date of 1962, which is earlier than the publication date of your version. <BR/><BR/>If things can get this murky with a modern document, imagine what a daunting challenge we face in trying to reconstruct the early document evolution of documents first written in the first and second centuries CE!Frank McCoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977985447972987579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-69228230393896747052008-10-07T04:33:00.000-04:002008-10-07T04:33:00.000-04:00No we don't have the autographs, but we regularly ...No we don't have the autographs, but we regularly do have manuscripts that represent them (at least in part). This presents additional problems in that it is impossible to know just how many times the text has been copied between autograph and ms: An early text may have undergone numerous significant changes - either intentional or due to scribal error - and a later text may be a direct copy of a very early early text with no interim alteration. Authenticity is a difficult nettle to grasp - as you so rightly say 'texts' and 'documents' exist in a continuum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com