Fri Mar 29 02:40:54 1996
From majordom Fri Mar 29 02:40:54 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA14420; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:40:54 +0500
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:37:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 9920
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
> Textual critics need to maintain the distinction between the autograph
> (i.e., the "original" document) and the archetype (i.e., the ms that
> is the most immediate ancestor of all extant mss). Though they may be
> identical, it is by no means certain that they are in every, or in any,
> case. To assert that archetype=autograph is a faith statement.
This is partly due to the underlying presuppositions of the eclectic
schools, which also are "faith" statements. It comes down to a matter of
probability, viz., is it more likely that the autograph = archetype in a
textual tradition which quantitatively and qualitatively surpasses all
other classical secular literature, or is it more likely that the
autograph <> archetype, and that only an archetype of later stages of
transmission can be restored, perhaps only the archetypes of individual
texttypes, with no hope of going beyond that to the actual autograph.
Even though the competing presuppositions underlying each text-critical
viewpoint may be "faith" assumptions, I would argue de minorem ad majorem,
and suggest that, since classical scholars consider their textual
restoration, made with far less extant data than we possess for the the
NT, to be the restoration of the autograph and not the archetype in almost
every situation, it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not
think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to and not further
away from that goal.
Quite frankly, if the papyri had not turned up, or if they had presented
a nearly pure Alexandrian text rather than the "mixture" now seen in
them, I suspect that the argument from modern eclectics would be that
archetype _must_ equal autograph. Though coming from a different
perspective, the pro-Byzantine position _does_ take that very view, and is
in conformity with the normal classical approach to textual criticism.
> I raise
> again the spectre of Hort's "primitive corruptions," because they always
> lurk behind the text.
I question that assumption entirely. Why "always"? There seems to be a
presumption of non-authenticity which prevails in such an assumption.
Why not a presumption that, unless some demonstration of inauthenticity
can be _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" and of
autograph originality. To do otherwise will make a mockery of the labors
of textual critics, since anyone can then argue that, even in places
where there are NO textual variants, that the original "could not have so
read." This in fact is precisely the Muslim approach to the OT and NT,
which they consider extremely "corrupted" from the pure Torah and Injil
delivered by Moses and Jesus -- just the phrase "son of God" is urged in
proof of that assertion, and no textual variant is in view.
Even if the "spectre of primitive corruption" is only invoked in places
where there are variant readings and where interpretation is difficult,
this still makes its own "faith presumption" regarding the transmission of
the text. Based upon the data we have and the care with which the bulk of
it was preserved (and I am talking about the 90% of the text in all MSS of
all texttypes which is basically certain), there is no reason why a
presupposition postulating primitive error need be maintained. If we only
had 10 or 12 MSS extant, of varying texttypes, such a presupposition might
be possible; but with the evidence we presently possess, I see a greater
faith assumption on the part of those who propose primitive error than on
those who presuppose the autograph text certainly to reside somewhere
among our extant MSS and their variant readings.
> It is irrelevant whether someone "advocates"
> conjectural readings, because in some instances, admittedly probably only
> a small number, the "original" reading may not be recoverable, and text
> critics have to admit that.
Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the text
of the NT. Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely.
> Do extant texts preserve all the original readings, so that the
> industrious scholar can theoretically piece together all the readings of
> the autograph? I don't see any reason to think so.
Why not? What is there in the process of copying which you think would
cause the original reading at any given point to be _utterly_ wiped out in
ALL derived witnesses and no longer preserved within the vast number of
continuous text MSS, lectionaries, versional data, or patristic data? No
other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no classical
scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely in such a
situation.
Further, as mentioned above, if primitive error can be suspected in _some_
places where variation occurs, what is there to prevent suspicion of
primitive error even in places where _no_ variation occurs? There is no
legitimate boundary which restricts such a presupposition from being
applied anywhere once one does not happen to agree with or understand the
text.
> Who is to say that
> several copies were made of every autograph?
No one can say this for certain. My own view of apostolic authority and
the evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single
recipients of the autograph MSS leads me to suppose that at least the one
autograph copy which arrived at, say, Colossae, was soon copied at least
once (obviously, or we would have NO extant copies), and either from the
autograph or from the first copy made other copies were made soon
thereafter.
My guess is for more rapid multiplication in the initial stages, while
comparison or copying from the autograph was possible; but thus is not a
necessity in any event. If only two or three copies were made from an
autograph directly, there would be sufficient data for the text of that
book both to spread, become corrupt in various ways during the popular
text era, and then by later cross-correction to move back to the
restoration of the autograph text as the originally divergent "families"
re-converged during the correction process once free communication and
the legitimacy of the chuch had been recognized within the Empire.
> Or who can say for certain
> that some ms family lines, like some branches on a human family tree,
> didn't play out after one or two generations?
Certainly this did happen to many family lines of transmission.
Transmissional history is not an unbroken stemma, but has various dead
ends. Some of those dead ends may be reflected in a portion of our extant
MSS, which were never used as exemplars or to correct a second MS (which
MSS these are, of course, is indeterminate). However, my claim is simply
that a sufficient number of lines of transmission did exist so as to
preserve the autograph reading in one or more of those lines; most of the
time in all of those lines.
> The most textual critics
> can hope to reconstruct is the archetype, not the autograph, of any given
> book, at least if we claim to rely on any semblance of scientific model,
> but this archetype may lie one or more generations beyond the autograph.
Agreed that the goal is to reconstruct an archetype. But, if there is
merit in the hypothesis that the primary archetype is the autograph, then
there is no reason to suppose that only archetypes of later stages of
transmission can be restored, but never the archetype of the autograph.
Most textual critics would probably agree that the archetype of the
Byzantine Textform can basically be restored. If that archetype is held
to be identical or nearly so to the autographical archetype, there is a
hypothesis which is put forth and needs to be tested in the light of all
data.
On the assumption that texttype archetype would NOT equal the
autograph, then we would end up with the peculiar situation of being
quite able to restore some form of primitive archetype for the Byzantine,
Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean texttypes, but would be utterly
incapable of going beyond that to a postulation of the autograph
archetype. This is highly illogical, and inconsistent with the data
preserved to us in the extant witnesses. Even most reasoned eclectics
think that the current critical text basically is equivalent to the
autograph, since it obviously is not restoring _any_ texttypical
"archetype," due to its "mixed" character. If the current critical texts
are not considered to be restoring the autograph archetype, then why did
they not merely present the text of B-Aleph and leave it at that?
> Reconstructed hypothetical "autographs" _may_ require conjectures, but
> these are hardly scientific.
What is unscientific about a reconstruction of the autograph based upon
the extant data as opposed to the reconstruction of the archetype of a
texttype based upon the extant data? Why is conjecture or suspicion of
"primitive error" needed in the first case, but not so in the second case?
There still seems to be a double standard and illogic at work, and it goes
back to the "faith presupposition" underlying this type of theory, but not
my own.
> (Note that I am leaving aside for now the whole question of "original"
> readings and if every NT book has a single autograph.)
Yes, the discussion here is of archetypes, which is wholly different from
individual variant readings. There are theories as to whether, e.g.,
Acts, may have had two or more "editions" which would account for the
wide variation between the Alexandrian and Western texts of that book,
etc., but this also is not in view here.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back