Subject: Re: tc-list no original?

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:43:18 -0400 (EDT)

At 10:15 AM 10/14/97 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote:
(responding to Larry)
>> --to seek to recover the earliest available form(s) of the text of 
>> the NT writings;
>> --to trace the history of the transmission of the NT text (I fit 
>> within the camp that sees this as a necessary part of the previous 
>> aim, as well as being a perfectly valid aim on its own);
>> --to contribute to the integration of the textual history of the NT 
>> with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal 
>> history).
>
>These I also see as valid goals of TC.  Where the misunderstanding arose
>is that Jim West wondered about recovering the "original text:" what does
>that refer to?  (a) Does it include reference to NT gospel texts only
>*after* their editors/evangelists had done with them?  Or (b) can it refer
>to recovering earlier text upon which the first gospel was based?  Only
>the latter has relevance if one desires to know what it was that Jesus
>taught.  Should or does TC have any interest in that?  Perhaps Dr. West
>was only referring to text of type (a), however. 

No- to be precise I am referring to the notion that there is no such thing
as an original text as every text is portrayed as undergoing a multi-edition
simultaneous publication.  It is this multi-edition simultaneous publication
notion that is causing me trouble.  As far as I know, no author publishes a
first edition and a second edition the same day.  

>
>This kind of question was also raised by Robert Waltz re Jeremiah, e.g.,
>as to what should TC try to reconstruct: the MT, the LXX or some earlier
>"original word?"
>

That simply skirts the issue, so far as I can tell.  The author of Jeremiah
simply did not sit, pen in both hands, writing a Greek edition and a Hebrew
edition which he gave to the professional scribes on one and the same day in
order to publish both.  I am, dear folks, not trying to reduce the
proposition to absurdity.  I am honestly trying to comprehend how it is
possible for someone to suggest that a text was published in multiple
editions at the same time.  Something was written first!  Either the vorlage
of the LXX or the vorlage of the MT; but surely not both at the same time!!!
It is this "first" text which is of interest, and which I would call the
"original" text.  What else could it be called?
Further, the fact that my question goes unanswered seems to suggest that a)
there is no answer (which is fine by me) or b) the question is taken as
irrelevant.
If b) then I must go on to ask exactly what it is that text critics are
looking for- merely the textual history of a document?  This seems to be the
only possible solution;  thus TC is not about recovering an original text
but it is instead about tracing the textual history of a document.  Again,
if this is the answer, I can live with that.  What I cannot live with is the
dread purgatory of a  both/and dialectic.

>It seems that the distinction between (a) and (b) needs to be made clear
>in questions of this type. 
>

No- the subdivision of the question merely ignores the larger issue.

>Jim Deardorff

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:02 -0400 (EDT)

> first edition and a second edition the same day.  

Jim, you might be interested in reading Harry Y. Gamble, _Books and
Readers in the Early Church_, especially chapter 3, "The Publication and
Circulation of Early Christian Literature."  I wrote the TC review of this
book, and I summarize some matters he discusses relating to the question
of an original text and multiple editions in pars. 10-12
(http://purl.org/TC/vol02/Gamble1997rev-os.html).  (I might also note in
passing that Gamble offers very stimulating discussions of many issues of
interest to text critics, from a historical perspective).

> "original" text.  What else could it be called?

Well, it could be called the first edition rather than the original text.
In that case, you might have two "original" texts, original in the sense
that both are intentional products of the author (or later editor).  When
literary and textual criticism overlap, identifying the "original" text is
problematic, but I don't think that there is no "original" text for
_any_ biblical book.  Whether it can be reconstructed may be a different
story!

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: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:03:58 -0500 (CDT)

>first edition and a second edition the same day.  

Not quite true. One might offer different editions for different
purposes. I'll give a modern example

The magazine I publish has an associated web page. We publish a certain
number of articles in both places. But they are rarely identical. For
example, the web page usually has fewer graphics, because we have a
limited amount of space. But the web page often has more bibliographic
resources, because columns don't have to fit onto a fixed page.

It is conceivable -- though I don't believe it -- that NT authors could
have done something similar. The closest thing to a reasonable example
is Ephesians, which might have existed in multiple copies (one to
Ephesus, another perhaps to Laodicea, and the "file copy" with no
listed destination). Alternately, take the "two editions of Acts"
theory. Perhaps (this is *not* an official theory, merely an
example) Luke prepared one for use by Paul in his defense in Rome
and another for use by the church in Rome.

I repeat, I *don't* think this is the case with the NT. But it is
conceivable.

>order to publish both.

True enough -- though I don't consider it skirting the issue! Since
*neither* proceeded directly from Jeremiah, I think it reasonable to
ask which is original....

>I am, dear folks, not trying to reduce the

In the case of Jeremiah, or perhaps even 2 Corinthians, I'm not sure
that's relevant. These are *assembled* books, with pieces coming from
all over the place. There is no "first edition," since the parts
circulated separately.

But I agree this is exceptional and does not address your main
problem.

>there is no answer (which is fine by me) or b) the question is taken as

Speaking for me personally, I think that a person who believes there
is no "original text" is wrong -- at least in most cases. There usually
is something we should be attempting to reconstruct. (Though I am
not always sanguine about our ability to do so.)

>dread purgatory of a  both/and dialectic.

I actually think both are useful -- but the history of the text is
useful primarily for determining the original text (i.e. it's a tool).

If that helps. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: lakr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT)

Dear TC'ers,

I have been looking at the variants found at Rev 4:11 with regard to
the following : [ please be forwarned that I am new to this. ]

	A. ACIOS EI [ O KURIOS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN	NA27
	B. ACIOS EI [ KURIE ] O QEOS HMWN		AV SYh
	C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN	Aleph

I consulted Nestle/Aland27 Alfords and Merk. The only other interesting
thing I found is that reading B. uses SYh, which is supposed to
be a very good critial edition, but that noone has done much
work on how well it does on Revelation.

1. Internal evidence

I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation
and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it
is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used
in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean
that the internal evidence favors KURIE ?

	KURIE	Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20
	KURIOS	Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6;

2. The longer reading to me appears to be my C. above.  I interpret
longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this
correct ?

3.  The more difficult reading. I guess for me it would be A. above
considering how I feel about the internal evidence.

4. Now the tough part for me.  I went and zeroxed the only Uncial
manuscript that I could find which happens to be the Alexandrinus.

The whole part that I need is not legible, unfortuneately. But I do
note that the QEOS is a nomina sacra with Bar-Theta/Sigma and the
KURI[OS | E] only has space for the two characters, so I know it is
also a nomina sacra. I put it in [brackets] below.

...........___........__.....
ACIOS EI O [KS] KAI O QS HMWN 
.............................

Now, in looking at the table of nomina sacra's provided on Bob's web
site, I only see one nomina sacra for KURIOS - a KS.  So, how can
one be sure if ANY occurence of KURIOS is nominitive or vocative ?
I sure someone has a good explanation for this.

My conclusion:

I like reading C.  It is the longest reading and from what little I 
know about TC, Aleph is a primary witness for Revelation.  Where did
I go wrong ?  I did not come to the same conclusion as the experts !

Sincerely,
Larry Kruper

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:33:42 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, [email-masked] (lakr) wrote:

(BTW -- I have personally devoted almost no time to the study of the
Apocalypse, and have no feeling either for the text or for the
witnesses, so I'm going to skip over large parts of this where I
don't know enough to have a clear opinion.)

>	C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN	Aleph

Let's expand this evidence just a bit

O KURIOS KAI       A 046 104 1611 Byz(K)
KURIE              1854 Byz(Andreas) hark
KURIE O KURIOS KAI Aleph

On this basis it appears that O KURIOS KAI is the best-attested.
It has two of the four text-types, and the other two are split.
It also has most of the better minuscules.

[ ... ]

>that the internal evidence favors KURIE ?

If your feeling is right (and this is one of those places where
I have no opinion :-), I would say it is, as being more in
accord with the author's style.

>longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this

Yes, although the rule about longer/shorter reading is a very
weak reed on which to base anything. I'd call it a "canon of
last resort." :-)

[ ... ]

>also a nomina sacra. I put it in [brackets] below.

Perhaps this is something I need to make more explicit in the article
on the nomina sacra. They *do* inflect; there are always enough letters
at the end to determine the inflection. So the NS for KURIOS is KS;
that for KURIE is KE (as I recall).

>I go wrong ?  I did not come to the same conclusion as the experts !

You're right, Aleph is a primary witness -- the *only* complete
witness to the P47/Aleph text-type (although most scholars don't
think much of this type).

But you missed the fact that reading C is a singular reading of Aleph.
Your case might be good if it had some more support. But it is more
likely to be a scribal error in Aleph.

In general, one should not accept singular readings unless the
other readings offer such a hopeless tangle that none emerges
as superior.

That's what I can say about this reading. I leave the rest up to
others.

And BTW -- don't be afraid to disagree with the experts. Remember,
no two scholars have agreed completely about what is the best
text. Experts may require respect; they don't require worship.
(At least as long as you don't have to take classes from them,
anyway. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:35:14 -0700 (PDT)

> 	C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN	Aleph

Larry-

I can only offer a few observations, the harder questions will have to
wait for more expert people to respond.  But I do have a few points. 

The first of them is that it is always better practice to evalute external
evidence more thoroughly before turning to internal evidence. I admit that
this is harder for Revelation than for most other NT books simply because
there are so many fewer witnesses to this book. 

> It is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used

Not unconditionally.  But it certainly is a factor that must be
considered.

> longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this

This is true, of course, but the _signifigance_ of this fact remains
unclear until you can establish whether it is longer because it C. is a
conflation of A and B, or because it is stylistic polishing or whatever. 

In this case, I would guess that it is a conflation (rather than the
others being shorter versions of C).  But again, I would like to see the
external evidence before making this conclusion (as I write this, my NA26
is unavailable).

> considering how I feel about the internal evidence.

Interesting.  I would say C. is the harder reading.  A. is not likely to
have been considered the harder reading by the scribe simply because hO
KYRIOS = KYRIE is so common in Biblical and Liturgical Greek. But the
repetition KYRIE hO KYRIOS sounds cumbersome, much like asyndeton.

[snip]

It sounds like Bob listed the nomina sacra only in the nominative
singular.  KE KY KN also occur.

I hope this helps.

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:00:51 +000

As mentioned by one of us, the nomina sacra are more varied than 
might at first appear.
E.g., in the "contracted" forms (lst letter + last letter) of theos, 
kyrios, christos, Iesous, the nomina sacra forms with be the lst 
letter and last letter *of the inflected forms*:  thus,e.g., for 
theos:  theta-sigma for nom., theta-upsilon for gen., etc.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]