Subject: Re: Original Text

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:03:21 -0500 (EST)

I would define "the original text" as synonymous with "the autographs", the
writings as first penned by the biblical author (Moses, Isaiah, The four
Evangelists, Paul etc.)

At 06:30 PM 1/15/97 GMT, you wrote:
>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
>
>

Kevin W. Woodruff
Library Director/Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
1815 Union Ave. 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
423/493-4252 (office)
423/698-9447 (home)
423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 09:14 +0200

> Received: from sunvax.sun.ac.za by maties4.sun.ac.za with smtp; Thu, 16 Jan 
> 97 08:13:23 +0200
> Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by sunvax.sun.ac.za with SMTP;
>           Thu, 16 Jan 1997 8:28:39 GMT
> Received: from scholar.cc.emory.edu (scholar.cc.emory.edu [170.140.38.9]) by 
> graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id BAA14673; 
> Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:18:10 -0500 (EST)
> Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
>         id BAA24683; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:12 -0500
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:22:07 -0500 (EST)
> From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Original Text
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> These are the answers I've seen so far.
> 
> Jim West wrote:
> 
> > The putative "original text" is that text which the author or authors of a
> > Biblical document put to paper (or, more probably, papyrus or vellum).
> 
> Jim gives us a pretty standard answer, but his use of the word "putative"
> suggests he has reservations that he has not gone into in his post.
> 
> Next, Robert B. Waltz opined:
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> Similarly, Kevin W. Woodruff said:
> 
> Jean VALENTIN, however, clearly has doubts about this definition:
> 
> > In any case, if such a thing ever existed, it is lost and all our
> > reconstructions remain reconstructions. Personally, I find we're on more
> > solid ground when studying the development and diversity of the tradition
> > than when trying to reconstruct a remote original... I must avow my
> > perplexity when facing these questions.
> 
> I would argue for a more nuanced answer to the question, "What is the
> original text?"  Is there always _an_ autograph?  For some books,
> particularly in the NT, I think there is.  For example, I suspect that
> the letters of Paul (probably even the disputed ones) for the most part
> had one agreed-upon original form.  That is, when it came time to copy
> Galatians, the entire letter, probably written on papyrus, was produced
> and copied word for word (at least that was the intent).  Even with the
> letters of Paul, though, there is some room for doubt that a _single_
> autograph existed.  After all, it's well-known that the addressee in the
> letter to the Ephesians _may_ have been originally left blank, and it has
> also been suggested that the 16th chapter of Romans was a sort of cover
> letter to the epistle.  Did the "original" include this cover letter?
> And what about 2 Corinthians?  If, as many commentators have suggested,
> it consists of what were originally two or more independent compositions,
> what do we mean when we talk about the "original" of this book?  We
> probably mean the state of the text that was actually copied, whether or
> not there were constituent parts of this "original" that might have
> circulated independently at some point in time.
> 
> If the Pauline letters, of which I think it generally makes sense to talk
> about original texts, raise questions about the actual definition of
> "original text," what about the Synoptic Gospels?  If Mark was really a
> source for both Matthew and Luke, is it somehow "more" original than
> these?  I would say no, because we have to draw a distinction between
> literary development and textual transmission.
> 
> But where does one stop and the other begin?  Emanuel Tov discusses this
> problem in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, and perhaps the
> problem is clearer in the OT.  What do you do with books that don't have a
> single author?  It's probably reasonable to say that the existence of
> Pentateuchal sources does not interfere with our search for an original
> text of Genesis, since composition _may_ have been completed before
> textual transmission began.  However, it is not clear that the same can be
> said of a book like Samuel.  In the story of David and Goliath, the MT
> includes many verses not present in the LXX, detailing things like how
> David met Saul (he was bringing food to his brothers in the camp) and
> Saul's question concerning the identity of David.  It seems as though one
> version of the story without these components was already circulating when
> someone added the additional material, then began circulating that
> version.  Similar comments can be made about Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  And
> what about Daniel and Esther?  With many OT books it is difficult, if not
> impossible, to make a sharp distinction between an author of a work, a
> reviser of the work, and a copyist of the work (who might also revise it).
> 
> All this is to say that the term "original text," at least for many
> biblical books, is not as straightforward as one might imagine.  If we are
> to continue to use the term, I would say that the "original text" (and I
> would use the quotation marks) means "that state of the text that was the
> genealogical root of all extant copies" (i.e., the archetype, not
> necessarily the autograph, although they may be the same in some cases).
> In those cases where composition overlaps with the beginning of
> transmission, we have the paradox of more than one "original text."
> 
> Finally, I would add that I think that the "original text" is a valid
> goal for the textual critic, but there are other valid goals as well,
> including (1) a description of the transmission process (as Jean Valentin
> has noted), (2) the archetype of a particular text-type, (3) the
> archetype of a particular version, (4) the earliest recoverable form of
> the text (which may or may not be equivalent to the "original text," as
> defined above), and (5) the form of the text used in a particular region
> at a particular time.  This is obviously just a representative list, not
> an exhaustive one.  And one last point: I agree with Bob that we need to
> recognize that our reconstructions are just that; we shouldn't put _too_
> much faith in our own creations, since, as Bill Petersen has pointed out
> before, the data from which we work (not to mention our methodology!) is
> limited.
> 
> 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 <-----------------

As far as OT/Hebrew Bible textual criticism is concerned I think we should 
rather talk about "original texts"! 

Johann Cook 
Dept of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
University of Stellenbosch 
South Africa

---

From: [email-masked] (Eugene Ulrich)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:42:26 -0500

>TC-list. All the comments about what the 'original text' is have been
>good. The issue is still difficult. J. Adair writes: 'If we are to
>continue to use the term, I would say that the 'original text' . . .
>means 'that state of the text that was the genealogical root of all
>extant copies.' We need to consider, however, that more than one edition
>or draft may have influenced the textual transmission of a given biblical book.
>
>                                    George Howard
>                                    UGA
__________________________________________________

George Howard is right on the mark. Our conceptions of "an/the original
text" are dependent on earlier views with two limitations: (1) lack of
data, and (2)naive assumptions about the single authorship of biblical
books.

But (1) the scrolls finally give us data about what the scriptural books
looked like at the time of the origins of Rabbinic Judaism and
Christianity, and (2)virtually all books of the Heb.Bible as well as the
gospels have communal authorship.

(1) In a series of articles over the past nine years I have tried to show
that we can now document "variant literary editions" for many of the books
of the Heb.Bible (Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, parts of Samuel, Jeremiah,
Psalms, Daniel, etc). That seems to be due to the fact that -- and
coordinate with the results of literary, trad.-hist., and redaction
criticism, showing that --

(2) the text of most biblical books is composite. The community in each new
generation inherited traditional "sacred literature," some one(s) reworked
it in light of contemporary concerns/historical or pastoral
needs/possibilities, and a "new edition" of that book was produced. This
happened, not once or twice, but habitually; this "revised edition" method
was the way the scriptures were composed from beginning of process to --

The process apparently *ended* only in the early second century CE, but
there may not have been an end to process except for the double threat (a)
of the sobering outcome of the two revolts against the Romans, and (b) of
the emerging tensions between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews. The latter
tensions apparently gave rise to the need for an agreed-upon fixed text for
debate, while Torah-based (replacing Temple-based) Judaism also eventually
gave rise to the need for a fixed text.  But that's second century CE, and
there seems to be no evidence that the texts adopted by each community
(even the Samaritans) were adopted according to any textual, critical, or
religious criteria. Each seemingly adopted one of the current forms
(editions) of the text circulating at the time. Prior to the second century
the evidence seems to point to accepted pluriformity in the biblical text
tradition.

Since the texts were developed organically, and since newer editions were
intended to enrich the earlier form of the text, seeking "the original"
text may even be a move in the wrong direction.  Of course, differences
must be made between NT and HB (in addition to classical) textual
criticism, but for HB the object of textual ciriticsm -- in my view, which
differs from my friend Emanual Tov -- is not the Masoretic Text or even the
pure form behind MT or any single text, but rather the developing strata of
the HB which was dynamic and pluriform.

Eugene Ulrich
Univ. Notre Dame

---

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 21:22:09 +0100

Another thought about original texts... Some very important religious 
texts are known as _compilations_ of traditions. Take a look at the 
talmud, the sunna, the Qoran,... also some biblical books have been 
analyzed in that way. Some of these "books" took several generations 
before they were finalized. So, where's the original text? Who decides 
that, when somebody changes the text, it is a compilation, redaction, 
recension, revision... When are we still in the elaboration of the text, 
and when are we in the process of transmission? Sometimes, it's very 
difficult to say, especially when another phenomenon must be taken into 
account: that of canonization.

Now also, if a tradition has existed before it took the form of a book, 
which is the original text? What if the tradition continues its 
development when the book is already circulating, what about the 
influence of the one upon the other? Where is the original text in all 
these mutual influences?

So these are some reasons why I spoke of a "chimera". Of course, some 
books, by their nature, seem more likely to have been "written" than 
"elaborated". Most epistles are probably in this case. The Gospels, or 
the legal and historical compilations of the OT seem to me much more of a 
"traditional" nature, and here the idea of an "original text" seems too 
theoretical to me.

_______________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

---

From: [email-masked] (Carlton Winbery)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:53:20 +0400

Jim wrote;
>Just as an aside- Kurt Aland was a brilliant critic and more capable than
>most in the field of textual studies.  It is currently the vogue to deride
>his incredible contributions; but his work has stood, and will continue to
>stand, the test of time.  The works of others will come and go, but Kurt
>will be around for a long, long while.
>
>The Alexandrian text type is excellent.  If there is any demonstrable proof
>that any other type or mixture of types is superior to it, it has failed to
>appear to this point.
>
Oh Jim, I'm afraid you've thrown the gauntlet!  I tend to agree with you though.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:13:26 -0600

In response to my observation, Robert Waltz observed:

> On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >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.  

> 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?

I have no real response to your general objection, other than to note
that--if in fact books were written as I've suggested above--this probably
remains an open and thorny question, involving faith questions (i.e., the
doctrine and authority of scripture, the nature of inspiration and canon)
as well as historical questions.  The fact would remain that significant
groups of Christians spent decades/centuries/millenia regarding the earlier
editions as authoritative bases for practice and faith.

To your specific objection, however--haven't you ever rewritten something
in a way that took an entirely different tack than what you'd originally
written?  The appeal to contradiction as a general rule (to wit, "no author
would write something that contradicted what he/she'd written before")
doesn't stand up, I think.  We'd be better off (and certainly within the
provenance of this forum) to consider specific contradictions between D et.
al. and the other texts, rather than appealing to general rules, wouldn't
we?

PLStepp

************************************************************
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: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:52:31 -0500 (EST)

Jack,

>	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

There are, without a doubt, layers in this Gospel. The goal of text
criticism here, as everywhere, is to recover the oldest layer; from there
the glosses and additions can be ascertained and analyzed.
But now we have left text criticism and wandered down the "Hauptstrasse" of
redaction criticism.
In its purest form, text criticism assembles all available manuscripts and
versions (yes, I have been converted from my former "non version" error,
thanks to DC Parker's remarks on the subject).  Once these mss are collated
they can be examined.  We cannot, after all, practice text criticism on a
hypothetical reconstruction for which we have no physical evidence.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

[email-masked]