Subject: Re: Original Text

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:08:54 -0500 (EST)

Jim,
At 02:48 PM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
> To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone
>writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own
>work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to
>send to a publisher.  Which is the "original text," the first draft or the
>final, publishable version? 

This is a useful analogy where pen, paper, and word processors make it quite
inexpensive to toy with a manuscript.  But where papyrus could cost an arm
and a leg it is not likely that an author would write two or three versions
and then decide which one to send in.  He would most likely have well in
mind exactly what he (or she) wished to say and then it would be written down.

At any rate, if an author did write a first draft- it is the first one!
Then other editions or drafts were made.  And we are back to my original
premise that there had to be a first.

> In a similar way, if we think in terms of
>copyist/authors who are transmitting the text, is the real original their
>_Vorlage_ or their final, substantially modified product?

Again, this modern editorial methodology simply does not apply to an ancient
enviroment where, if mss were corrected or changed, we still today can see
that change (as is evident by all the scribal notations, corrections, and
erasures we are all very familiar with).  For instance, changes were clearly
made to the scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran.  We can see them clear as day.
They are additions or corrections to a document which preceded them.

>  When authorship
>overlaps with transmission, 

I suppose this is the Achilles heel of the whole situation we are
discussing; for what exactly does it mean to say that authorship and
transmission overlap?  Does it mean that the author with his right hand
writes a document and with the left simultaneously copies it? (the good old,
redutio ad absurdam- but I fail completely to see how transmission and
authorship can overlap at all).

>as in the case of numerous OT books, as Gene
>Ulrich has noted, the identification of a single "original" does become
>problematic.

Only if one presupposes (pace Bultmann!) that such an event as
transmission/authorship has taken place.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:39:26 +000

In these discussions about the process(es) involved in composing & 
copying ancient texts, I rather have the feeling that we all need to 
acquire a better grasp of ancient realia involved.  Can I recommend 
that we all start by reading something like Harry Gamble's new book: 
_Books and Readers in the Early CHurch:  A History of Early Christian 
Texts_ (Yale Univ Press, 1995)?

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:22:02 -0500 (EST)

> >final, publishable version? 

***************

Consider even an ancient analogy. It has been recognized that much of what
we have of "Aristotle's Works" are actually the notes from which he
lectured, with an expansion added here or there by his students. What's
the original text?

Or, (as I mentioned in an earlier posting) what would be the original text
in one of Wittgenstein's books, a book which was pasted together by
some editor out of bits and pieces of lecture notes, letters, diaries,
etc. from his Nachlass?

Could not the Pentateuch also have been composed out of Moses' Nachlass?

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:24:20 -0600

> mind exactly what he (or she) wished to say and then it would be written down.

	I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue.  It is
one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books
of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata
between it's "autograph" and the form now extant.  Speculating the
probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee
and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd
century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the
goal for recovery by textual criticism?

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:48:55 -0500 (EST)

When we use the analogy of editions, we can distinguish between two
different types of edition:

Many national magazines and newspapers publish four parallel editions
(east coast,
deep south, mid-west and west, west coast). Each would be equally
authoritative as an edition.

Books go through successive editions: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Generally
(although certainly not always), the last edition is regarded as the most
authoritative - this is common practice with textbooks, grammars,
dictionaries, etc.

I find it hard to imagine that many of the New Testament books went
through autograph editions of either kind; maybe the Gospels and Acts,
perhaps Revelation - but not epistles: they're too short.

On the other hand, I can readily imagine that some of the Old Testament
books went through editions: Proverbs, for example.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:50 -0700

>goal for recovery by textual criticism?

This viewpoint troubles me. Given that John has suffered some
editing (Chapter 21 being the obvious example), I don't believe
there will ever be consensus reached on *how many* hands contributed
which parts.

Given that there was clearly a final edition of John (including
chapter 21) which circulated to the church, that and only that is
a legitimate object of textual criticism. The rest is for
literary critics. (Assuming the matter needs to be studied at
all, which I consider questionable.)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:39:09 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> >Speculating the
> ...

I agree with Bob on this point.  Text critics are only interested in the 
form of the text that circulated, not earlier forms that did not (or of 
which we have no extant evidence of circulation).  When two (or 
more) distinct forms circulated (e.g., Acts, Samuel), then both are 
legitimate object of text-critical study.  If we can ever arrive at an 
acceptable outline of the entire textual history of a particular book, 
most of these issues will be solved.  Then people will be able to choose 
which text to call "original" (if they are so inclined), either the 
earliest form of the text (Jim West et al.), or the most developed form of 
the text (Gene Ulrich, Bob Waltz, etc.), or that form of the text that lies 
behind the dominant textual tradition (i.e., the MT, either HB/OT 
or NT) (Emanuel Tov).  In addition, the process of transmission itself 
will have been mapped (Jean Valentin).

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 <-----------------

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:10:20 -0600

> all, which I consider questionable.)

	Then you are saying an attempt to reconstruct the original
autograph of the GJohn is not a legitimate object of textual criticism
and, in fact, is a questionable matter not worthy of study?  The
object of my message was the interpretation of "original text" as
defined in TC.

> will have been mapped (Jean Valentin).

	But I interpret Bob's response that the "earliest form of
the text" (the autograph) is not important to study.  If text critics
are only interested in the final edition that circulated, in the
case of GJohn at the beginning of the 2nd century, this does
not tell us much about the theological and christological developments
textually interpolated between the mid 1st century and the early
2nd century.

	I'm not debating the point, I am merely trying to get a handle
on the textual critic's "official" definition of "original text."

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:53:40 -0700

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]> wrote, quoting
me:

[ ... ]

>object of my message was the interpretation of "original text" as

Reconstructing the "original autograph" of John may be interesting
as a literary exercise (it's of little interest to me, but that's
my personal pejudice).

But the only thing we as *textual* scholars can do is reconstruct
the published version. Including chapter 21. To the best of my
knowledge, there are *no* copies of John in existence which omit
Chapter 21. Therefore we cannot as textual scholars work on
such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the
first twenty chapters.

Please, don't confuse speculative criticism -- of any sort --
with textual criticism.

If you want to discuss a version of Romans without chapter 16, that's
fine; 1506 omits the chapter. If you want to look at Mark without
16:9-20, that's even better, since B and Aleph omit. But don't
work on John without chapter 21!

>the text" (the autograph) is not important to study.

Question: If you believe that John went through four or five stages
of redaction, which is "the autograph"?

It would appear that all manuscripts of John go back to a single
manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct.

>If text critics

Conceded -- but this is not the task of the textual critic. In fact,
I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead
to bias.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:34:10 -0600

> as a literary exercise (it's of little interest to me, but that's

	That's understandable.
> such an edition -- let alone work on strata found within the

	Now I see what you mean.  When and IF an early form of John
is found (perhaps a complete Egerton) without the appendage of 21,
THEN it becomes a tool of the textual critic.  TC's work only with
what is extant. Would you recognize, however, that the absence of
GJohn 7:53-8:11 from all texts earlier than Bezae constitutes more
than speculation that it was not part of the autograph?  It is here,
I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic.

> Please, don't confuse speculative criticism -- of any sort --

	Gotcha Bob..if'n it aint ink of paper...   :)

> work on John without chapter 21!

	Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha!

> of redaction, which is "the autograph"?

	An early Aramaic narrative written by Johnny Zeb himself and
still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation.

> manuscript. That is the manuscript I seek to reconstruct.

	But only as far as the existing textual witnesses take you
which is no earlier than Bodmer?  The single manuscript from which
all mss of John arose, penned in Palestine, lies unreachable for
the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave
Asia Minor.

> I think textual critics should not study such things. It can lead

	I get your point, Bob.  It's gotta be on papyrus.

ATINA EAN GRAFHTAI KAQ EN.......

	Jack

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:36:02 -0700

I fear this discussion is going downhill, so I will try to clarify
anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic....

>I assume, we drift to the camp of the literary critic.

I'm not sure I see the point. I *don't* consider it part of the
autograph -- but I say so on the basis of manuscripts. Literary
criticism plays no part.

I suppose you could argue that those who reject Mark 16:9-20
do so on literary grounds ("it doesn't match Mark's style").
I suppose even I am influenced by that... but I *also* note
that it is omitted by the earliest Alexandrians, is marked
with doubts in the best "Caesareans" (fam 1), and is not found
in the two most important "Westerns" (k sin).

>	Until we find a 1st century copy of John...gotcha!

I detect sarcasm here. (Obviously it's not too hard to spot.)
I fail to see why. Why *should* textual critics step outside
their discipline?

Would you want me, as a physicist and/or a folk musician, to lecture
you about theology? I assume not. Why, then, would you want a literary
critic telling you how to conduct textual criticism?

[ ... ]

>still embedded in the GJohn in Greek translation.

All right. It's not *my* viewpoint, but it can certainly be argued
for. What value, if any, would you place on the further stages of
the redaction? And what is the value of the final recension from
which all manuscripts are derived? Is there one? Does the fact
that the church placed its faith in the final product have any
influence?

And, as you work to reconstruct this hypothetical autograph,
what role do you want textual critics to play? I confess to being
utterly confused.

>the TC but possible for the LC. I take it the TC's cannot leave

Who says the earliest witness is Bodmer? The earliest witness is
probably Ignatius. Then p52, and Justin Martyr, and p66 and
Irenaeus and.... Some of these are easier to use than others --
but they are all *witnesses*.

But why do you say that "single manuscript" (and I'm not sure whether
you mean here the Aramaic or the Greek) is any more accessible to the
literary than the textual critic?

>	I get your point, Bob.  It's gotta be on papyrus.

Or parchment, or paper -- or ostraca for that matter. I'm not built
to play speculative games.

And my apologies to the folks who think this discussion is getting
really bullheaded. You're right; it is. When I hear this kind of
talk, my scientific side tends to take over....

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:45:57 -0600

> anything that needs clarifying and then get off the topic....

Why is it going downhill? I have gained some insight from it.

> autograph -- but I say so on the basis of manuscripts. Literary

	I was looking for the level at which textual criticism ends and
literary criticism begins.

> I fail to see why. Why *should* textual critics step outside

	Not a BIT of sarcasm.  I am merely qualifying that TC's
work with the factual and extant texts.  Why are you looking for
an attitude that does not exist?

> critic telling you how to conduct textual criticism?

	I wouldn't, Bob...I am defining, for my own edification, the
boundaries of textual criticism vs literary criticism from your
perspective.
Why does that offend you?

> that the church placed its faith in the final product have any

	The value I place on it is the understanding how theology
and christology developed between the "original text" and the final
product.

> but they are all *witnesses*.

	I understand that, Bob...but P52 is just a scrap.
> literary than the textual critic?

	You made it clear that Textual critics work only with the existing
manuscripts.  An Aramaic reconstruction of "proto-John" does not exist,
therefore it lies within the realm of speculation from a literary
standpoint.

> talk, my scientific side tends to take over....

	Bob, I am also a scientist...you are taking offense and reading
"bullheadedness" where it does not exist.  I was looking for
illumination
from the TC's viewpoint, not argument.

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:44:57 -0700

To save wear and tear on your monitors, I won't quote much of Jack
Kilmon's letter. I thought he was pounding a point home by repetition.
I see that he was just seeking clarity. My apologies for my
misinterpretation.

If there are any other questions about what I said, I will try to
answer politely.

Sorry about all that.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]