Subject: autographs and archetypes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 15:37:27 +0100

On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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.

Conjectural emendation is always a critical point. Nevertheless, especially 
classical scholars are often forced to, how they call it, _divinatio_, whether 
due to only one existing copy of a given text or due to a corrupt archetype of 
the textual transmission of a given text. The whole problem is theoretically and 
practically exposed in 'Paul Maas, Textkritik, Leipzig (3rd ed.) 1957'. Looking 
at New Testament textual criticism especially classical scholars or classical 
trained scholars did never rule out the possibility of, if not the need for 
divinatio. Randomly chosen I may refer to Schleiermacher (note hat he was also 
an editor of Plato), and in our century to Guenter Zuntz and his article 'The 
critic correcting the author; in: Philologus, XCIX (1955), 295-303 (idem, 
Opuscula selecta, Mancester 1972, 269-277)'.

It is quite an other thing, to be shure, if one has to accept every single 
conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if not all classical 
scholars never totally rule out the need for divinatio even in the New 
Testament.

I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called 'Dialog des 
Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author unknown, copmosed between 
around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 
12th to 16th centuries. They all go back to one single heavily corrupted 
archetype including corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of 
leaves, etc.). The dialogue was translated by Rufin into Latin (around 400 
A.D.), and, though lacking the major interchange of leaves corruption, included 
one hardly understandable reading which Rufin smoothed away in his translation. 
That the reading in charge is in fact a scribal error can be demonstrated 
because we know the source of the dialogue in this particular instance. So we 
know that the corruption goes back at least to 40 to 70 years after the date of 
composition. Looking only at the textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was 
in no different situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are 
today. What makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.  

To be shure, I don't want to argue for total corruption in New Testament textual 
transmission. Personally I would opt for extreme caution with respect to 
conjectural emendation. This is mostly due to the vast amount of textual data we 
have to work through. On the other hand there is the very crucial point that the 
New Testament is not just one book, but in fact a _collection_ of books 
consisting of different _subcollections_. With respect to this problem 
conjectural emendation is never to be ruled out. Because, what can be 
reconstructed as archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with 
what was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the ending 
of Pauls letter to the Romans).

On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Timmothy John Finney wrote:

> Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus 
> Paulinum_ that every MS of Paul's letters is a collection. 
> Even Hebrews is always found in a collection. There are 
> some points of dissension, but in general there is agreement 
> that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a 
> collection by 100 AD.

> When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my 
> initial post, it was with this in mind. No one knows what 
> happened between the original composition of these 
> writings and their collection into one corpus.

I totally agree with that. What may be an interesting and worthwile effort is to 
 collect data possibly connected to the emergence of collections. 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:24:30 -0500 (EST)

[long -- part 1 of 2]

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

I'm just trying to examine a few presuppositions, in
order to see how they affect the resulting positions we take.

>> it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not
>> think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to . . .
>> that goal.

>Abundance of evidence is certainly preferable to paucity of evidence.
>I would agree that it's possible to get closer to the original with
>more evidence, but as we approach the "100% original" limit, the
>diversity of the evidence shows us that this limit cannot really be
>reached.

I agree with this statement, worded as it is; I differ only regarding 
the previous claim that, in spite of the amount of evidence we possess, 
conjecture cannot be ruled out as the ultimate solution in certain
variant units.

Even within a Byzantine-priority method there still remain numerous
variant units where the external data are divided and the text
basically becomes established by internal evidence.  In those cases
(especially in the book of Revelation), no claim of 100% certainty can
be made, and I obviously do not in my own edition, nor do Hodges and
Farstad in their edition.

>> re: Hort's "primitive corruptions"
>> There seems to be a presumption of non-authenticity. . . .
>> Why not a presumption that, unless . . . inauthenticity can be
>> _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" . . .

> There is no presumption of non-authenticity.  My presumption is
> non-certainty.

Your term is more precise, and I accept the semantic correction.

However, at whatever point you invoke the non-certainty principle in
favor of conjecture, non-authenticity is being proclaimed regardless.
I too have a non-certainty principle, as mentioned above, yet I rule
out conjecture altogether, due to the quantity of evidence we possess.

Under your principle, conjecture can _never_ be ruled out, and could in
theory be applied to any known variant unit where decisions or
interpretation are difficult, or even to difficult readings in places
where NO textual variation occurs at all, e.g. the "Enoch" conjecture
in 1Pet.3:19 which has been mentioned.

I simply consider it illegitimate to presume the "non-certainty"
principle as an initial factor which then allows a departure from the
evidence whenever the whim of conjecture may happen to strike the
interpreter.

Of course, neither the "Enoch" nor any other conjecture was printed as
the main text in any Greek NT edition until UBS3/N26 conjectured their
reading of Ac.16:12 -- and even this must have been embarrassing, since
some stray vulgate MSS have now been found which are cited to "justify"
that conjecture in N27 (Erasmus and the Johannine Comma incident should
not be forgotten when such occurs -- at least the Comma had some
limited _Greek_ evidence).

>Textual critics can only work with the data they have, and NT text 
>critics certainly do have good data in comparison with, say,
>classical text critics, but assuming that the reading of the autograph
>has been preserved in _every_ case is quite a presumption.

If the number of extant MSS, versions, and fathers were but 10, there 
would certainly be a great potential for conjecture.  If the number of 
extant witnesses increased to 100, the potential would be significantly 
reduced.  If statistical theory is now applied to the entire the 
quantity of data we currently posses, I  doubt that any statistician 
would suggest a theoretical degree of error more than about 1/10000 of
a percent.  If so, then simply rejecting conjecture as a legitimate 
methodology is hardly "quite a presumption" -- note also that the issue 
of "100% certainty" is _not_ being claimed merely because conjecture 
has been properly ejected from the text-critical toolbox.

>If I had said that primitive corruption
>is definitely behind certain readings in our NT text, this would be a
>faith presumption.  To say that we cannot be certain that _every_
>autograph reading is preserved in one or more extant witnesses is a
>statement of caution.

The presumption of possible primitive corruption which transcends our 
extant evidence is still a presupposition based on a faith (or doubt) 
assumption.  There are limits beyond which caution turns into paranoia, 
and I think that conjecture in the face of massive extant evidence 
simply crosses that line.

> It might not even be too much to say, from a
>purely logical standpoint, that it is a statement of fact, which could
>only be disproved if we had all of the autographs.

Of course, as others have mentioned, even if we did discover them, how 
would we know?  On the other hand, had the autographs been preserved 
from their original era, then textual criticism would no longer be 
needed.  A vicious hypothetical circle from which postulating
conjectures is the only escape? I think not.

>>Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the
>>text of the NT.  Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely.

>I don't deny that many, maybe most (I haven't checked all of them),
>handbooks rule out conjecture; certainly all caution against its
>overuse.  But let me quote Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_:

>   "One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New
>    Testament a process which has so often been found essential in the
>    restoration of the right text in classical authors.  

Granted in theory, but Metzger immediately counters this theoretical 
presumption by appealing to the quantity of evidence which, even in 
his opinion, basically rules out conjecture as a working principle for 
NT textual criticism.

>    ... the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, ...
>    is so much greater than that available for any
>    classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is
>    reduced to the smallest dimensions.  

>    It is perhaps chiefly in the
>    Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, where the early manuscript
>    evidence is more limited than for any other part of the New
>    Testament, that the need for attempting conjectural emendation may
>    arise with any degree of urgency" (p. 185).

Metzger is correct that in those particular books we have less data
than in the remainder of the NT.  He still hedges with "perhaps",
however, and I would still urge that the quantity of evidence preserved
even in the Apocalypse (with around 275 MSS, a few versions, and a few
fathers) is wholly sufficient by which to establish the text without
having a need to appeal to conjecture.  Again, I would urge a
statistician to calculate the likelihood of error existing in over 300
Greek MSS of the Apocalypse with at least three competing types of text
(Andreas, Q, and Egyptian) existing.  I suspect even here about 1/1000
of a percent likelihood of error.

> Again, I am _not_
> advocating wholesale emendation of the text; I am only saying that
> emendation cannot be theoretically ruled out as a tool of the
> textual critic.

Granting the above in theory, is there any place in _practice_ where 
you are convinced that all extant witnesses are corrupt and conjecture 
is needed to resolve the difficulty?  Ac.16:12 of course immediately 
springs to mind, since UBS3/4 and N26/27 have adopted the conjecture 
there -- but is even that case necessary in your opinion?  And if so, 
what other places would you maintain are hopelessly corrupt in our 
extant data?

>> 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.

>This is the famous "slippery slope" argument, popularly used by many
>people on all sides of many debates, but logically of no value to the
>argument.  

But this is precisely what _did_ occur in the case of the "Enoch"
reading in 1Pet., and, if all the conjectures noted in the various 
critical editions are listed, I will suspect that the majority of them 
in fact occur in places where there is _no_ substantial textual 
variation -- no "slippery slope" there; rather, a willingness to 
presume "primitive error" even in places where no variant readings 
exist.

>the real questions is whether other scholars will agree with their
>assessment.

Which, except for the Ac.16:12 matter, has not occurred in the printed
Greek NT editions as regards their main text.

>All in all,
>I doubt that admitting that conjecture is a legitimate tool of the NT
>textual critic will lead to a stampede of new emendations in future
>critical editions of the text.

I definitely agree with this statement; however, I still do not think
the door needs to be opened even a crack here.  There simply is too
much data with which to work.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:26:49 -0500 (EST)

[long - part 2 of 2]

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

>Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be
>reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the
>Byzantine, as Maurice said),

Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of
Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral.
However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could
be constructed for the leading texttypes.

Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead
us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most
closely approaching the autograph.  Even though no one follows Hort's
patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle
of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive
archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an
underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their
hypothetical archetypes.  It therefore is not difficult to seek that
underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph.
As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and
inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses."

Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says:

>nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype 
>that lay behind the text-type archetypes.

Yet he continues:

>However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs
>the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the
>autograph.

I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point.  The 
"non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what 
statistical degree?  Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three
major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty
that such is the autograph text.  Even where two out of three texttypes
agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of
certainty.  To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the
"uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all
witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where
variation occurs.  Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty
as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does
not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the
remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to
leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture.

>by their nature, conjectures are unscientific.
>That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on
>reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case.

I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do 
they have within the _science_ of textual criticism?  (Metzger's answer 
was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I 
thoroughly disagree).  

The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the 
rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot.  The 
latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to
support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned 
arguments."  Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as 
opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of 
Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to 
conjectural emendation.

>I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100%
>assurance, especially the Western text-type.

My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a
lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western).

_Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my
>presuppositions, as are Maurice's.  He has stated that one of his
>presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard
>by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the
>first copy was copied more than once).

This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any 
theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as
either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_
necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an 
essential postulate.

Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even
non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at
such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently.  My
theory still functions quite well in that scenario.

The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph
was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice.
Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from
single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would
maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of
the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which
eventually descended from those single copies.

Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors,
but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would
be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction
would be able to function.

So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the
autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis
would presumably take form.  However, since in no case in the Greek NT
as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all
extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including
Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on
their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of
such primitive corruption.  This is highly unlikely, given the nature
of scribal textual transmission.

The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of
transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then
became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used
frequently in the early "popular text" era or not.  Under the
scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the
least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled.  In this case, the
easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the
source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were
themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying
into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS
which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second
century.

>He has further indicated that one
>reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the
>evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of
>the autograph MSS."  Fine.  I can see why he concludes that every reading
>of the autographs has been preserved.

I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy,
inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory.  The 
issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is 
whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered 
the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate 
them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous 
copies.  Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one 
copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a 
given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves 
down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known 
facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first 
three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its 
differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years.  I 
suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming 
multiple copying of the autograph.  That is all.  My own theological 
views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an 
atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did 
not believe the text thereby transmitted.

>I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate.
>We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that
>other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to
>the Corinthians).  

These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in 
fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840.  Others, 
like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early 
church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the 
canonical NT literature.  Without getting back into the argument over 
canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered 
more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be 
more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were 
not viewed in the same manner.

>This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into
>the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such
>as the gospels and the major Pauline letters.  

As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and 
Revelation than other NT books.  Revelation especially, since it was 
not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections.
The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some 
dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use.  
Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and 
popularity.  This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books 
being excluded from ultimate canonicity.

>After all, the early
>Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately
>be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon).  

For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen, 
or Westcott.  I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this
aspect within a text-critical forum.

>Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early
>mss of books like James and 2 Peter.  All this leads me to question
>whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual
>descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were
>made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died
>out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition.  

I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or 
Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from 
the autograph.  It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made
of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately
developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but 
I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books 
were initially copied from the autograph.  That more than one copy was 
made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario 
which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the 
various texttype alignments we currently possess.

>I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of
>the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss.  Maybe they have
>been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case.  At whichever
>conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in
>his or her decision.

This is absolutely true.  My own presuppositions, however, stem from a 
working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history 
of that transmission.  This is a major difference from the approach of 
the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for 
conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy 
and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do.

---

From: "JAKUHN.US.ORACLE.COM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 12:23:16 PST

--Boundary-18441371-0-0

>underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph. 
 
Is this true? "_does_ equal" doesn't mean 100% does it? 
 
j

--Boundary-18441371-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Sent:     04 Apr 1996 11:34:37
From:"Maurice Robinson " <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
Reply-to: [email-masked]
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  [email-masked]
X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk

[long - part 2 of 2]

--Boundary-18441371-0-0--