Subject: Re: Original Text

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:55:56 -0600

Jim West opined:

> 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.

Generally speaking, Graeco-Roman authors did in fact write multiple
editions of their ms.  They seem to have circulated these
editions--sometimes in toto, sometimes in bits and pieces--and invited
criticisms, suggestions, and then revised and reworked their ms in the
light of the suggestions they received.  

If this approach was as widely used as I've gathered, it throws the whole
question of "original text" (at least for the gospels) into a whole new
light: e.g., both the "Western" and the "Alexandrian" texts of Acts may
have issued from the pen of a single author, simply two different editions,
both of which that author  regarded as THE text (as did large communities
of Christians), circulated at different times.  

[Consider: if such is the case, shouldn't the aims of textual criticism be
descriptive rather than authoritative (i.e., trying to describe rather than
trying to arrive at an "original" text?  Ah, I've got a headache!]

The Status Quaestionis is described in Harry Gamble, *Books and Readers in
the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts* (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1995), which I'm about to read for a Ph.D. seminar.  The
above opinion is gathered from papers I've heard, particularly David
Balch's offering at the Southwest Commision on Religious Studies in Dallas
last year.  If anyone has read Gamble's book, feel free to weigh in.

Perry L. Stepp

************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional
values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception 
which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."
                                Phaedo 69b
***********************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:37:56 -0700

>trying to arrive at an "original" text?  Ah, I've got a headache!]

I agree that ancient authors sometimes revised their works. I know
that there are even a few cases where different drafts have been
preserved (this is common with mediaeval manuscripts; consider
Piers Plowman or the visions of Julian of Norwich). Even so, I
see two problems with this viewpoint, one general and one specific.

The general one: Even if an author published multiple editions, should
not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed?

The specific: In the case of Acts, the two drafts (Alexandrian and
"Western") are at some points contradictory. Would an author have
changed the *meaning* of his text in this way?

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

                            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 10:17:11 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: 

> Even if an author published multiple editions, should

Of course, it depends on what is meant by "authoritative" here.  When
dealing with the New Testament, one's view of the authority of scripture
will certainly affect his or her text-critical goals.  However, if, as I
suspect, Bob is referring to the text which is officially promulgated by
the author, and so is _author_itative in that sense, if a second, 
substantially different, version is also circulated and copied, I would 
think that either would be valid targets of text-critical effort.  The 
relationship between the two "original" texts would be the provenance of 
the literary critic, not the text critic.

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: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:23:07 -0700

>the literary critic, not the text critic.

This is a good point; there can be multiple "official" versions of a
text. Jerome's work in the Psalms is an example, with three versions
eventually in circulation. These three versions all need separate
textual investigation.

But I still think that, out of respect for the author, we owe it
to him/her to treat the final version as "the last word." The others
should be studied more from the standpoint of development of the
aiuthor's viewpoint.

IMHO.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]