Subject: Re: Original Text

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:25:20 GMT

Nevertheless, we must at some point another presume that someone, somewhere,
sat down and wrote something.  Paul wrote 2 Cor- perhaps over a period of
time (which seems most likely).  Yet he did write something.

The assumption that manuscripts existed from the very beginning in multiple
editions seems truly silly; for someone sat down and wrote something first.
Sure there were additions and second editions and so forth- but there had to
have been an original!  To say that Samuel exists in numerous editions is
quite correct; but there had to have been a first edition or there would not
have been any subsequent editions.

Several years ago a friend of mine presented a paper and was roundly
chastised by one audience member for stating that "the original text most
likely was..."  The complainer went on to state that there was no original
text; only editions.

So I said, editions of what?  My question went (and goes) unanswered by
those who, for some reason or another, reject the fact that there was, once
upon a time, a text (singular) written by a person (singular).

Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:48:53 -0500 (EST)

> have been any subsequent editions.

I'm not sure that authorship of all books in the Bible, especially the OT,
is that straightforward.  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?  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?  When authorship
overlaps with transmission, as in the case of numerous OT books, as Gene
Ulrich has noted, the identification of a single "original" does become
problematic.  This is not to say that many biblical books don't have a
single original lying behind them.  Some undoubtedly do.  In other cases,
however, the term "original text" is ambiguous.  Gene suggests that OT
text critics look for "the developing strata of the HB which was dynamic
and pluriform."  I think looking for the earliest recoverable form(s) of
the text is another interesting possibility for 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 <-----------------