Thu Jan 16 02:16:53 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 02:16:53 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id CAA24847; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:16:12 -0500
From: cook@maties.sun.ac.za
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 09:14 +0200
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <6882067862972058@maties.sun.ac.za>
Subject: RE: Re: Original Text
X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7275
> Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 16 Jan
> 97 08:13:23 +0200
> Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP;
> Thu, 16 Jan 1997 8:28:39 GMT
> Received: from scholar.cc.emory.edu (scholar.cc.emory.edu [170.140.38.9]) by
> graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id BAA14673;
> Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:18:10 -0500 (EST)
> 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
>
> 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 <-----------------
As far as OT/Hebrew Bible textual criticism is concerned I think we should
rather talk about "original texts"!
Johann Cook
Dept of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of Stellenbosch
South Africa
>
Back