Thu Jan 16 10:55:55 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 10:55:55 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA27569; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:53:43 -0500
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:42:26 -0500
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Eugene.C.Ulrich.1@nd.edu (Eugene Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3342

>TC-list. All the comments about what the 'original text' is have been
>good. The issue is still difficult. J. Adair writes: 'If we are to
>continue to use the term, I would say that the 'original text' . . .
>means 'that state of the text that was the genealogical root of all
>extant copies.' We need to consider, however, that more than one edition
>or draft may have influenced the textual transmission of a given biblical book.
>
>                                    George Howard
>                                    UGA
__________________________________________________

George Howard is right on the mark. Our conceptions of "an/the original
text" are dependent on earlier views with two limitations: (1) lack of
data, and (2)naive assumptions about the single authorship of biblical
books.

But (1) the scrolls finally give us data about what the scriptural books
looked like at the time of the origins of Rabbinic Judaism and
Christianity, and (2)virtually all books of the Heb.Bible as well as the
gospels have communal authorship.

(1) In a series of articles over the past nine years I have tried to show
that we can now document "variant literary editions" for many of the books
of the Heb.Bible (Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, parts of Samuel, Jeremiah,
Psalms, Daniel, etc). That seems to be due to the fact that -- and
coordinate with the results of literary, trad.-hist., and redaction
criticism, showing that --

(2) the text of most biblical books is composite. The community in each new
generation inherited traditional "sacred literature," some one(s) reworked
it in light of contemporary concerns/historical or pastoral
needs/possibilities, and a "new edition" of that book was produced. This
happened, not once or twice, but habitually; this "revised edition" method
was the way the scriptures were composed from beginning of process to --

The process apparently *ended* only in the early second century CE, but
there may not have been an end to process except for the double threat (a)
of the sobering outcome of the two revolts against the Romans, and (b) of
the emerging tensions between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews. The latter
tensions apparently gave rise to the need for an agreed-upon fixed text for
debate, while Torah-based (replacing Temple-based) Judaism also eventually
gave rise to the need for a fixed text.  But that's second century CE, and
there seems to be no evidence that the texts adopted by each community
(even the Samaritans) were adopted according to any textual, critical, or
religious criteria. Each seemingly adopted one of the current forms
(editions) of the text circulating at the time. Prior to the second century
the evidence seems to point to accepted pluriformity in the biblical text
tradition.

Since the texts were developed organically, and since newer editions were
intended to enrich the earlier form of the text, seeking "the original"
text may even be a move in the wrong direction.  Of course, differences
must be made between NT and HB (in addition to classical) textual
criticism, but for HB the object of textual ciriticsm -- in my view, which
differs from my friend Emanual Tov -- is not the Masoretic Text or even the
pure form behind MT or any single text, but rather the developing strata of
the HB which was dynamic and pluriform.

Eugene Ulrich
Univ. Notre Dame

Back