Thu Jan 16 01:22:48 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 01:22:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id BAA24683; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Original Text
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970115140209.2f179676@mail.sunbelt.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 5896
These are the answers I've seen so far.
Jim West wrote:
> The putative "original text" is that text which the author or authors of a
> Biblical document put to paper (or, more probably, papyrus or vellum).
Jim gives us a pretty standard answer, but his use of the word "putative"
suggests he has reservations that he has not gone into in his post.
Next, Robert B. Waltz opined:
> The term "original text" is not a problem; everyone (or nearly
> everyone) will agree that it is the autographs circulated by the
> authors. (A few might argue for "the text originally promulgated
> by the church," but -- given that the canon was not even settled
> by the fourth century -- there probably never was such a text.)
Similarly, Kevin W. Woodruff said:
> I would define "the original text" as synonymous with "the autographs", the
> writings as first penned by the biblical author (Moses, Isaiah, The four
> Evangelists, Paul etc.)
Jean VALENTIN, however, clearly has doubts about this definition:
> In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our
> reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more
> solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition
> than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my
> perplexity when facing these questions.
I would argue for a more nuanced answer to the question, "What is the
original text?" Is there always _an_ autograph? For some books,
particularly in the NT, I think there is. For example, I suspect that
the letters of Paul (probably even the disputed ones) for the most part
had one agreed-upon original form. That is, when it came time to copy
Galatians, the entire letter, probably written on papyrus, was produced
and copied word for word (at least that was the intent). Even with the
letters of Paul, though, there is some room for doubt that a _single_
autograph existed. After all, it's well-known that the addressee in the
letter to the Ephesians _may_ have been originally left blank, and it has
also been suggested that the 16th chapter of Romans was a sort of cover
letter to the epistle. Did the "original" include this cover letter?
And what about 2 Corinthians? If, as many commentators have suggested,
it consists of what were originally two or more independent compositions,
what do we mean when we talk about the "original" of this book? We
probably mean the state of the text that was actually copied, whether or
not there were constituent parts of this "original" that might have
circulated independently at some point in time.
If the Pauline letters, of which I think it generally makes sense to talk
about original texts, raise questions about the actual definition of
"original text," what about the Synoptic Gospels? If Mark was really a
source for both Matthew and Luke, is it somehow "more" original than
these? I would say no, because we have to draw a distinction between
literary development and textual transmission.
But where does one stop and the other begin? Emanuel Tov discusses this
problem in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, and perhaps the
problem is clearer in the OT. What do you do with books that don't have a
single author? It's probably reasonable to say that the existence of
Pentateuchal sources does not interfere with our search for an original
text of Genesis, since composition _may_ have been completed before
textual transmission began. However, it is not clear that the same can be
said of a book like Samuel. In the story of David and Goliath, the MT
includes many verses not present in the LXX, detailing things like how
David met Saul (he was bringing food to his brothers in the camp) and
Saul's question concerning the identity of David. It seems as though one
version of the story without these components was already circulating when
someone added the additional material, then began circulating that
version. Similar comments can be made about Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And
what about Daniel and Esther? With many OT books it is difficult, if not
impossible, to make a sharp distinction between an author of a work, a
reviser of the work, and a copyist of the work (who might also revise it).
All this is to say that the term "original text," at least for many
biblical books, is not as straightforward as one might imagine. If we are
to continue to use the term, I would say that the "original text" (and I
would use the quotation marks) means "that state of the text that was the
genealogical root of all extant copies" (i.e., the archetype, not
necessarily the autograph, although they may be the same in some cases).
In those cases where composition overlaps with the beginning of
transmission, we have the paradox of more than one "original text."
Finally, I would add that I think that the "original text" is a valid
goal for the textual critic, but there are other valid goals as well,
including (1) a description of the transmission process (as Jean Valentin
has noted), (2) the archetype of a particular text-type, (3) the
archetype of a particular version, (4) the earliest recoverable form of
the text (which may or may not be equivalent to the "original text," as
defined above), and (5) the form of the text used in a particular region
at a particular time. This is obviously just a representative list, not
an exhaustive one. And one last point: I agree with Bob that we need to
recognize that our reconstructions are just that; we shouldn't put _too_
much faith in our own creations, since, as Bill Petersen has pointed out
before, the data from which we work (not to mention our methodology!) is
limited.
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
Back