|
(Continued from page 5...)
"faulty judgment" could be the culprit, i.e., the copying of a marginal note into the text. For instance, did the originator of the document spell "Carroll D." correctly, but receive a call from his mechanic and mistakenly write "Can-oil T." in the adjacent column instead of on a separate note-pad, thus supplying the typist with what appeared to be a desired correction of the original? Regarding inattentive scribes, Metzger notes (3rd ed., p. 194), "Only heedlessness to a degree that passes comprehension can account for some of the absurdities perpetuated by witless scribes."
Now, intentional changes are an entirely different matter. If this is actually an attempt to correct an original misspelling (the origin of which would remain shrouded with mystery and the pursuit of which would involve endless speculation), could it be that I was sent the original, misspelled document instead of the corrected one? Militating against this is the fact that the letter you sent is a Xeroxed copy.
It is, of course, possible that a conscious change was made due to "doctrinal considerations." Here, I assume the accuracy of the original text and do not want to get into matters of the inerrancy of the autograph. I readily confess ineptitude regarding Baptist theology, but it must be asked whether this could, in fact, be an "orthodox corruption." Are Baptists now anointing with "can-oil"? And could it be that a zealous can-oil Baptist typist actually changed the original text for theological reasons? In a slightly different vein, I am also unaware just how far post-Modernism has infiltrated Baptist circles, but could it be that the typist is so into "reader response" that, avoiding literary and historical context, "Carroll D." was ingeniously and purposefully interpreted as "This hits me as 'Can-oil T.'"?
Conjectural emendation is always a possibility in these sorts of readings, but in spite of Koester's insistence, these have rarely commended themselves to the reading public. It is more in the realm of possibility that this could be the conscious substitution of a culturally acceptable term for a culturally offensive term by a typist whose first language is other than English. I mean, who knows what seriously objectionable meaning "Carroll D." might have in some dialect in the highland jungles of New Guinea or the sub-Sahara, for which "Can-oil T." has become the acceptable usage? I regret that my graduate assistant's linguistic skills are inadequate to enable her to pursue this possibility in the 5,784 languages known to exist.
Whatever the reason for the alteration, traditional canons of textual criticism are not of much help here. "The shorter reading is to be preferred" and "the more difficult reading is to be preferred" would both give priority to "Can-oil T." Could it be that the original letter, like Ephesians, did not have an addressee, leaving it to the typist to supply one of his/her own choosing?
Finally, my work in the ancient manuscripts raises yet another possibility, and I hesitate to mention it, but the typist just might have been a little "tipsy" at the time. This was not uncommon among ancient scribes and led to several interesting readings in manuscripts.
Alternatively, and I apologize for not thinking of this earlier, is it possible that this is merely the assignment of a special, new name to incoming Fellows—you know, "Abram" to "Abraham," "Simon" to "Peter," "James and John" to "Sons of Thunder"? Is this like getting a new name upon becoming a monk? If so, two questions. First, what does my new name mean? Second, is it secret and to be used only "in house," or should I inform my dean about it, use it when submitting journal articles, and have it on my name tag at conferences?
Well, Daniel, I look forward to becoming a member of this Institute for Biblical Research of yours. It should be (to use the Coptic word for "male, husband, wild man") a "hoot."
Sincerely,
Carroll D. Osburn
[Further editors' note: this letter was actually sent, verbatim, to Dr. Block.]
|