Subject: Original Text

From: The Andersons <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:30:32 GMT

Greetings from London.

I am one of the 'lurkers' on the tc-list.  Currently I am in an MPhil/PhD
programme, working on a comparison of the methodologies and philosophies
employed in Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism.  One of the
biggest difficulties in this has been trying to pin down how different
scholars define the term 'original text'.  If I may be so bold, I would be
interested in getting your personal thoughts on what the 'original text' is
(or 'texts' are).  Individual comments will not be included in my thesis; I
am primarily interested in a general consensus of thought.  If you don't
want to clutter up the list, please feel free to send any responses to my
personal e-mail.

I would appreciate any comments which you might have opportunity to provide.
Thanks!

Deb Anderson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:44:33 -0700

>I would appreciate any comments which you might have opportunity to provide.

Hoo boy, fresh meat!

Watch out, we're all going to campaign for our individual viewpoints.

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.)

So the confusion is not in the meaning of the term "the original
text" but in how schoalrs *determine* the original text. There
have been all sorts of approaches to this. I will summarize some
of them; you will likely hear more detail about them from the
scholars involved.

Many take a particular text-type and follow it. Westcott and Hort
did this with the Alexandrian text; a few scholars such as A.C.
Clark adopted the "Western" text; Maurice Robinson would advocate
the Byzantine text.

Others such as J. Keith Elliot will examine points of variation and
choose the most suitable, based on stylistic considerations.

The most common school today is the "reasoned eclectic" school, who
look to the stylistic considerations and also examine the "value"
of the various manuscripts supporting the reading.

And then there's the right way. ;-)

My approach, which seems to provoke a lot of debate without garnering
me much support, is to look at text-types. While internal criteria
are not totally to be ignored, in general, the reading with the
support of the most text-types is to be considered original.

Obviously this means we need to *know* the text-types. I must admit
that I don't think this has ever been satisfactorily studied, except
perhaps in the Apocalypse. But here's what we know:

For the gospels there are apparently four text-types:
1. Alexandrian (possibly two text-types, centered around B and Aleph)
2. "Caesarean" (badly corrupt, and needing restorative work, but
                probably real)
3. "Western" (not to be confused with the text of D, which is evidently
              edited; we need to give the Latins more attention!)
4. Byzantine (the Byzantine text is late and should have little weight
              in making our decisions.)

Acts -- I haven't studied this, but I *think* there are the following:
1. Alexandrian
2. Family 1739 (1739 1891 945 630 etc.)
3. Family 2138 (2138 1611 614 2412 1505 2495 hark etc.)
4. "Western" (?)
5. Byzantine (again late, and not to be given much attention)

Paul --
1. Alexandrian (Aleph, A, C, 33, bo, 81, 1175, etc.)
2. p46/B (p46, B, sa, p13)
3. Family 1739 (1739 0243 0121 1881 6 424** etc.)
4. "Western" (D F G 629 OL)
5. Byzantine (as always, late)

Catholics --
1. Alexandrian (Aleph, A, 33, bo, 436, 81)
2. p72/B (may be a subgroup of the Alexandrian)
3. Family 1739 (C, 1241, 1739, 1881, 945, 2298, 424**, etc.)
4. Family 2138 (2138 1611 1505 2495 614 2412 630 1799 etc.)
5. Byzantine (late)

Apocalypse (according to J. Schmid)
1. A+C (Alexandrian)
2. p74+Aleph (Alexandrian?)
3. Byzantine/Koine
4. Byzantine/Andreas

** My two cents, multiplied several times over. :-)

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

                            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: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:54:11 -0600 (CST)

I do know what the original text is not.

1.  It is not Kurt Aland's "original text," ie. the Alexandrian text; 
though that is no doubt close and, like all other texts and families, 
exact in most places.  This is not to detract from his contributions to 
textual studies, but I believe his use of the original text was a step 
below his usual work.

2.  It has nothing to do with papyrus or ink.  I have had many students 
think of the original sheets of writing materials when they discussed 
"the originals" or "the autographs" or "the original writings."

My definition of the originals includes the supernatural.  The originals 
are the words chosen or approved by God as he directed and guided the 
first writers.  This would include Luke's research and Baruch's 
re-writing of Jeremiah's work.  Ultimately, the result was the same as 
the dictation theory (which I see as absurd) produces.  I do not have all 
the answers for even my own views, but they are similar to those of John 
Gill and Charles Spurgeon.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803