The writer of the present article contends that in order to interpret various narrations and accounts of an anecdote/text, each narration and account is to be considered as totally new and different from previous accounts and that this anecdote/text should be interpreted and understood as an original and novel work which is different from previous narrations or the earliest account of that anecdote/text. In this article, the writer denounces the identity of various narrations of a single text on different temporal/spatial grounds – even if the narrations are identical in structure and form – and claims that since the intention of the narrator or transmitter is ever regarded as part of the software organization and consistent component of a text, the narration of any text by a new narrator is in itself a new text which is governed by a different exegetical and contextual framework. The writer does not regard the process in which an original text or its earliest account temporally and spatially undergoes minimal or maximal transmutation as a merely historical and passive process, rather, he regards it at least as subconscious and attentive to the narrator’s scheme, plot, and intention. Thus, he suggests the appellation “equipment of the text” instead of “transmutation of the text” which is common among hermeneutists and fails to represent changes as being active or passive. This article is an introductory part of a project in which the writer deals with an evaluation and criticism of the “author’s religion” theory followed up in the last two centuries with much ado by the orientalists.
)
Send comment about this article