Subject: "Original" text???

From: [email-masked] (William Petersen)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:11:43 -0500

There are two issues which, although they may have been addressed in
passing, deserve more careful consideration in this discussion, IMHO.

First:  it is an empirical fact that not only the canon itself, but also the
books in the NT and HB canon, underwent revisions.  Some of these revisions
may have been long after the "author[s?]" of the original work was [were]
dead;  others may have been made during the lifetime of the author, but
unknown to him (i.e., happening in one geographic/linguistic region);  still
others, perhaps, know to him.  Here is the crux:  while we have textual
evidence for many of these, I know of no method by which on can determine
what the "official" or "last" edition of a particular author was.  And while
I can numerically determine that "this" (and not "that") text was "the text
that lies behind the *dominant* textual tradition" (to quote Jimmy Adair),
we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text (Byzantiners
would say this of the Alexandrian text in the fourth and fifth century;
Westcott-Horters would say this of the Byzantine text in the twelfth cent.).
The problem which we need to confront is this:  that the *process* of
textual evolution was continuous, diverse, and sometimes very subtle.  (And
it continues today:  see the examples in a review in the _Journal of
Religion_ 74 [1994], 562-564.)  While we can indeed distinguish between
suspected redactional changes for which there is NO textual evidence (the
grounds are solely literary, etc.), there are still many changes where there
IS textual evidence--but deciding where that line in the sand lies is well
nigh impossible.  (Cp. my "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism
Ultimately Reach?" in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church
History. A Discussion of Methods_, edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel.  Kampen
(the Netherlands): Kok/Pharos, 1994, pp. 136-152;  specific examples are
provided there.)

Second:  The more one reaches outside the "provincial" apparatus of the
"hand" editions of the NT, the more complex the picture becomes, and the
more difficult it is to make reasonable deductions.  It is here that the
versions/patristic sources/apocrypha come into play, for they often provide
important TEXTUAL support for very early readings.  Look at the evidence in
Bellinzoni's _The Sayings of Jesus in the writings of Justin Martyr_, and
you will quickly see how complex the matter is.

An example is the "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 in Luke 3.22 (+ "this day I
have begotten/generated you").  The "long" version of the text is know to
and quoted by Justin (who apparently regards it as the "standard" text of
his day)--and he is our earliest independent source for this text.  The
same, long version is also in Bezae, a goodly number of the Vetus Latina
MSS, Clement of Alexandria, etc., etc.  (Cp. the IGNT, Luke, vol. I, p.
68-69;  cf. Bart Ehrman's _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, pp. 62-67.)
In short, this is the earliest, most widely attested version of what is said
by the "voice from heaven."  It has even been adopted as the "standard" text
by the Huck-Greeven _Synopsis_ and the _New Jerusalem Bible_.  On the other
hand, Kurt Aland explained why the UBS committee had--despite this early and
widespread evidence--decided against it for the UBS/NA text:  "perfect" LXX
citations were rejected as later "improvements" in the text, and the
"non-standard" citations were, therefore, preferred as earlier.  (What is
odd in Aland's reasoning is that the "short" reading is also a "perfect" LXX
citation--it is just a shorter, abbreviated citation...)
To say that this is simply a "later" interpolation, made by "adoptionists"
ignores the facts that (1) Justin was not an adoptionist (he writes
glowingly of the virgin birth) and (2) he is early--in fact he is the
*earliest* citation of this passage.

Can anyone come up with an "earlier" source than Justin which quotes this
passage?  I suspect not...  OK:  what, then, did "Luke" write?  What text of
"Luke" was known to Justin in the mid-second century, and to Clement a few
decades later?  The longer text.  What edition of "Luke" was considered
"authoritative," as the "latest thing," by Justin, Clement, and others?  The
edition with the longer text.  Gee..., in that case, why don't we all have
the longer text as the standard text in our editions?

The answer is not hard to come by.  The longer text is not rejected because
it lacks early and authoritative textual support, becuase it does.  The
reason it has not been adopted as the standard text is because it was not in
Erasmus's edition, it was not in the TR, and does not agree with Christian
theology since, oh, say, 300 CE or so...  Theology and the influence of the
"authoritative" editions (Vulgate, Erasmus, TR, etc.)--regardless of their
merits--are more determinative than the evidence.  There's nothing wrong
with that, but let's be up front about it.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:08:32 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, William Petersen wrote:

> while

Just a minor correction (since I am otherwise staying out of the debate
over trying to define "original text"): 

Those who would favor Byzantine-priority would _not_ claim that "the
Alexandrian text in the fourth and fifth centuries" was "dominant", save
only in a localized sense. The status of dominancy (were evidence
available and preserved from the _entire_ Greek-speaking region of the
Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries) would still be claimed by us to
be the basic Byzantine Textform -- not only in that era but also in the
earlier periods as well as those which followed. 

I know that Dr. Petersen will sharply differ from this perspective and
speak once more about _ex silentio_ arguements, etc. as previously, but it
nevertheless _is_ proper to state the position of an opposing side in a
form which the advocates of that opposing side would accept; hence the
clarification. 

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:05:42 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, William Petersen wrote:

> Here is the crux:  while we have textual
> we all know that the *dominant* text may be a bad, corrupt text

I wasn't specific enough on what I meant by the "dominant textual
tradition."  When two (or more) significantly different forms of the text
exist (e.g., Samuel MT and LXX, Jeremiah MT and LXX, the two versions of
Acts, Daniel MT and LXX/Th, Esther MT and LXX), the dominant tradition is
that which was most widely accepted (of course, in the case of Daniel and
Esther, it depends on church/synagogue affiliation).  Maybe the term
"dominant text-form" would better express what I meant.  I don't consider
the Byzantine text to be a different textual tradition (text-form) from
the Alexandrian, despite their numerous differences, since I don't see any
evidence of extensive, systematic revision--and I wouldn't consider
recensional activity to be the same as a revision aimed at supplementing
(or correcting) the text.  Of course, the lines can be hard to draw at
times, but my impression is that Jeremiah MT represents an intentional
updating of the Hebrew Vorlage that lies behind the LXX, whereas the
Byzantine text-type in the NT reflects more of a natural development, with
perhaps some recensional activity as well.  Another point: I just
suggested that the Vorlage of the dominant textual tradition was _one_
possible goal of t-c.  The non-dominant traditions could just as readily
be investigated. 

> ...[discussion of Luke 3:22]

Now this is an interesting claim.  I suspect that most eclectics would 
dispute the claim that the longer reading ("today I have begotten you") 
has _authoritative_ textual support, since D is the only Greek witness.  
Do you think, Bill, that theology (and authoritative editions) comes into 
play on a case by case basis, or does it rather manifest itself in the 
overall theory used by most eclectics (e.g., the preference for a Greek 
witness over a versional or patristic witness, no matter how early)?  If 
the latter were the case, one could argue that, generally speaking, more 
"orthodox" readings are present in Greek mss than in the versions or 
Fathers because, since Greek continuous-text mss were the textual basis 
for the doctrine of the church, the Greek mss were more consistently 
revised toward the beliefs of the leaders of "orthodoxy" than were the 
other witnesses.  I would like to see more evidence that specific textual 
decisions are made on the basis of currently acceptable theological 
positions, at least a list of passages to consider.  By the way, in 
addition to the New Jerusalem Bible, both Moffatt and Goodspeed 
(apparently) adopt the longer reading, although Goodspeed softens the 
adoptionistic language with his translation, "You are my Chosen!"

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