tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6892372973074217213..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Greg Lanier: Locating the Inspired ‘Original’ Amid Textual ComplexityP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39133430297079816792018-04-18T17:55:32.193+01:002018-04-18T17:55:32.193+01:00Ah...wish I had come across that in my research! T...Ah...wish I had come across that in my research! The pitfalls of edited volumes, I suppose. It was unintentional, at any rate. And you're correct, A-S-M is certainly the least attested across the tradition. I'll need to procure your article to take a look.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91925664487791933222018-04-18T17:46:28.075+01:002018-04-18T17:46:28.075+01:00This is a really interesting textual problem that ...This is a really interesting textual problem that I dealt with a couple of years ago in my (Ulrich B. Schmid)<br />Old Greek and New Testament Versions of the Mosaic Law: The Intersection of Oral and Written Tradition, in: XIV CONGRESS OF THE IOSCS, HELSINKI, 2010, ed. by M. Peters, Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013 (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59) 587-604.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I argue that the sequence A-S-M in B-Exodus is not "original". (Veneration of B is not always warranted). There are only two versions (M-A-S and A-M-S) of the decalogue sequence that have created an impact in the the text traditions across, between and outside the two parts of the Bible. Hence, we should stick with them and treat the solitary B-Exodus sequence as a scribal error, the mechanics of which I outline in my essay. Ulrich Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599151189851613469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51630790138949937692018-04-17T03:44:44.488+01:002018-04-17T03:44:44.488+01:00I’m guessing the last qualification in #1.5 is bec...I’m guessing the last qualification in #1.5 is because Mike wants to leave room for conjecture. If so, I don’t see how #1 precludes that. The matter of multiple autographs is an interesting one, but very hard to demonstrate positively.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35334934188309947762018-04-16T19:18:12.680+01:002018-04-16T19:18:12.680+01:00Greg,
Imperfect it may be, but it is important tha...Greg,<br />Imperfect it may be, but it is important that we define these positions, so that clarity can be gained when individuals like Dr. Holmes interact with them. Thanks for the update and I hope to see further clarifications.<br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56788080916082410192018-04-16T14:50:35.470+01:002018-04-16T14:50:35.470+01:00Just had a helpful offline conversation with Mike ...Just had a helpful offline conversation with Mike Holmes that clarified this further. In my attempt at simplifying I unfortunately grouped him with the very folks he has critiqued or further nuanced on this front. So my apologies. This might be a better way of articulating it (though making it further complex)<br /><br />(1) There were singular inspired autographs, and we can reconstruct them with a high degree of confidence <br /><br />(1.5) There may have been singular autographs, and if so, based on the extant data, we may be able to reconstruct them, but only after taking an additional step (<- Holmes would fit here)<br /><br />(2) There may have been singular autographs, but we do not have them so we can have no real confidence in reconstructing much of anything<br /><br />(3) There may have been singular autographs, but based on extant data we cannot reconstruct them, only an approximation of initial text(s) used by various churches at some point downstream; thus, the distinction between autograph/original and initial is essentially meaningless<br /><br />(4) There were no singular autographs to begin with, but rather multiple layers of drafts, revisions (by author or followers), personal copies of the writer, etc. until things somehow coalesced in some published, canonical form<br /><br />This is still probably imperfect, though!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7327850474603177052018-04-15T00:03:01.167+01:002018-04-15T00:03:01.167+01:00Thanks for your generous comments Tim.
CheersThanks for your generous comments Tim.<br />CheersTimothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-9132437153818880782018-04-14T21:16:37.146+01:002018-04-14T21:16:37.146+01:00Greg,
I do think you have covered the ‘waterfront....Greg,<br />I do think you have covered the ‘waterfront.’ I hope you will address #3 and #4 more thoroughly in the future.<br />I look forward to more from Timothy Mitchell as well, his JETS article was more than a fair start. Tim was one of the few voices who was willing to address many of the concerns involved with the original, authorial, published, ausgangstext etc. <br /><br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48944191636453765432018-04-14T18:36:13.115+01:002018-04-14T18:36:13.115+01:00These issues are vitally important and even apolog...These issues are vitally important and even apologists and seminarians sometimes state whatever view seems to appease them<br />or their target audience to their detriment. We need to be honest<br />to everyone on these issues and better explain the background before giving our main thesis. However we must not get caught in<br />minutia while displaying the big picture that the manuscript evidence is on the side of the Christian.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85725771247654078572018-04-13T20:09:56.326+01:002018-04-13T20:09:56.326+01:00Thanks for this Greg.
I think that your comment is...Thanks for this Greg.<br />I think that your comment is a fair assessment of the various issues. And I do hope to address the issues under #4 better in the future. I feel that the JETS article was an okay start, but the argument could be greatly refined and improved. Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71796223688648335852018-04-13T20:03:40.681+01:002018-04-13T20:03:40.681+01:00Dude I would totally be in, but won't be makin...Dude I would totally be in, but won't be making SBL this year...bummer...hopefully next year.Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15575065029285825482018-04-13T18:09:59.358+01:002018-04-13T18:09:59.358+01:00Yes, that seems reasonable, and if one assume Dr T...Yes, that seems reasonable, and if one assume Dr Trobisch's reconstruction is correct, the version of the three we have is the third version. That means that again the 'Initial Text' that we reconstruct is worth of being considered authoritative/inspired (within the limits of our ability to reconstruct it). I wonder if the other multiplicity conjectures resolve as nicely.<br /><br /> Of course the conjecture of multiple texts is just that, a conjecture, but it was meant to point out we can't always assume that there was just one original.Bob Relyeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063651264391311686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73243018147546569462018-04-13T14:59:34.164+01:002018-04-13T14:59:34.164+01:00Thinking somewhat out loud here, would this be a r...Thinking somewhat out loud here, would this be a roughly accurate taxonomy of the basic positions on 'original' at present?<br /><br />(1) There were singular inspired autographs, and we can reconstruct them with a high degree of confidence though with a few open questions (folks holding to CSBI, Westminster, or some version thereof)<br /><br />(2) There may have been singular autographs, but we do not have them so we can have no real confidence in reconstructing much of anything (the early Ehrman fallacy, as so often rebutted by PWilliams)<br /><br />(3) There may have been singular autographs, but based on extant data we cannot reconstruct them, only an approximation of initial text(s) used by various churches at some point downstream (Parker, Holmes, Epp, later Ehrman [?])<br /><br />(4) There were no singular autographs to begin with, but rather multiple layers of drafts, revisions (by author or followers), personal copies of the writer, etc. until things somehow coalesced in some published, canonical form<br /><br />Does this cover the waterfront?<br /><br />If so, it seems to me that those who hold (1) (as I do) have responded well to (2), have somewhat engaged with (3) (Gurry in his thesis, for instance), but have not done a lot with (4) as of yet (TMitchell's article being an example), at least to my knowledge.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23033421967612998972018-04-13T14:56:06.114+01:002018-04-13T14:56:06.114+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76161584199350259452018-04-13T14:48:20.850+01:002018-04-13T14:48:20.850+01:00Tim,
Thanks for the reply. As to your second quest...Tim,<br />Thanks for the reply. As to your second question—yes, there's not a *ton* of skin in the game with this particular instance (commandments 6-8), though as I pointed out in the article some interpreters (Philo, for instance) *do* draw theological conclusions from, say, adultery being first (and therefore the central sin of that section). But there are other places where many folks draw somewhat precise theological conclusions or preach a passage a certain way based on sequencing of verses or chapters they receive as inspired (but about which there could be some open questions—think, proverbs and psalms).<br /><br />As to (3), I think most would agree that is the goal, and for the majority of text critics some version of that remains the common pursuit. But it seems that some of the more recent critiques (e.g., publication theories) have suggested not only that we cannot determine an A-text due to our limited data, but that there never was one. Rather, that there is a plurality from the beginning (drafts, etc.). <br /><br />As to four, yes, most of us would say that the reconstructed *text* reflects the inspired *text* regardless of the material upon which it was (back then or now) written.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7663277308729614142018-04-13T14:32:15.250+01:002018-04-13T14:32:15.250+01:00Smoothie King at ETS/SBL?Smoothie King at ETS/SBL?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15752660717277109562018-04-13T13:04:23.201+01:002018-04-13T13:04:23.201+01:00 “Which is original, the letters as he penned them... “Which is original, the letters as he penned them to the churches, the copies of those letters he kept, the edition of the collected letters he published?”<br /><br />If this question is correct (it assumes there are 3 different texts) then perhaps for us it is the collected edition where the original of each letter Paul wrote to each individual church in a given time was only authoritative to that individual church in that time, but is not otherwise authoritative, the copy Paul kept was only for his own reference, and the edition of collected letters is authoritative to all churches at all times.<br /><br />If snippets of the text of the individual copies and the reference copy has over the early centuries crept into later MSS of the final edition then the role of the textual critic is to weed out what has crept in.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Matthew Hamilton<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72652627798691073542018-04-12T20:59:54.955+01:002018-04-12T20:59:54.955+01:00Greg,
After reading your article, as an Evangelica...Greg,<br />After reading your article, as an Evangelical Pastor-Teacher who believes in inerrancy, I would say much. First, an amazing amount of research and work obviously went into this article, thanks for that. Second, I wonder, how important it is that the correct word order is determined for an Evangelical view of Scripture , even one like mine, that believes in verbal, plenary inspiration. Third, as for authorial, ausgangstext or initial, of course our goal should be the initial text, even while acknowledging we may not in some/many cases be able to determine it. Finally, being willing to see the text being apart from its artifact, the manuscripts, lets me believe that it is not just the autographs that are inspired or inerrant, but the text we have today in the NA/GNT, either in the text line or in the variants below. Is TC still necessary, of course, but God’s perseverance of His Word is sure, even in and particularly because of the number of manuscripts and the variance of the text within.<br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-25533091128786426192018-04-12T20:52:32.197+01:002018-04-12T20:52:32.197+01:00I think God guides some people to specialize in ce...I think God guides some people to specialize in certain areas (they will even enjoy, for the most part, the insane amount of effort!). Some of these people will be led to write at least one book on the popular level to give nonspecialists a hand. The body of Christ has various members, and they help each other out!Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73743602350618694732018-04-12T19:56:17.433+01:002018-04-12T19:56:17.433+01:00The think that I see as the complication is what i...The think that I see as the complication is what if the author put pen to paper twice? I'm thinking of things like Dr. Trobicsh's model of the collections of Paul's letters. If Paul did create a version of his letter collection. Which is original, the letters as he penned them to the churches, the copies of those letters he kept, the edition of the collected letters he published? <br /><br />It shouldn't be a surprise that we have this question. We have the same question about the documents for our nation. There we actually have 'the originals' and we still have a debate about which is original:<br /><br />The Constitution:<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2626538<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778049<br /><br />The Declaration of Independence:<br />https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/resources/which-version-and-why<br /><br />Perhaps looking at more accessible document histories like this can help us clarify what we see in our biblical Text streams.Bob Relyeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063651264391311686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76863395348410306742018-04-12T18:50:30.377+01:002018-04-12T18:50:30.377+01:00That doesn't sound too bad. Gurry and I will t...That doesn't sound too bad. Gurry and I will take a Capri Sun please...Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46153465217985795922018-04-12T18:22:38.234+01:002018-04-12T18:22:38.234+01:00Gurry would have to drink some kind of fruity conc...Gurry would have to drink some kind of fruity concoction.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-92189760951387054192018-04-12T18:08:44.224+01:002018-04-12T18:08:44.224+01:00Thanks for your comments Greg and I appreciate the...Thanks for your comments Greg and I appreciate the work your doing. I wasn't able to attend ETS last year, only SBL, so I am disappointed that I missed your presentation. <br />As far as a "theory of everything," I am right there with you and have a few ideas that I have been kicking around but have yet to write down.<br />As far as Larsen's article goes, yes, I do address the issue in a similar manner (though I come to an opposite conclusion). At the time I was unaware of Larsen's work but now have had the opportunity to meet him and read his resent JSNT publication. <br />I wish all of us lived closer and we could talk over a pint or a cup of coffee (sorry Gurry).<br /><br />Cheers Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10763356513255475992018-04-12T16:52:42.467+01:002018-04-12T16:52:42.467+01:00Good reminder, Benjamin—and thank you for your wor...Good reminder, Benjamin—and thank you for your work in shepherding. <br /><br />There is indeed a huge gap between the guild (and even the evangelical guild within the broader guild) and "normal" people on these topics, and my sense is that it's getting wider. But most of the folks reaching the pew on this stuff tend to be those who approach it from a different, typically post-Evangelical perspective (e.g., Enns and others). Their popular reception, among other things, proves that laypersons *are* actually interested in these issues. <br /><br />They want to know, in their time of need, that they have a trustworthy Bible. So our work on these incredibly complicated issues *does* have a pastoral upshot (at least, it's a big motivator for me, in my associate pastor role at a local church, where I'm regularly and pleasantly surprised that regular folks do think on these matters, at least at some level—sometimes even more than seminary students!). <br /><br />The challenge is that engaging in a serious way with issues like this requires an insane amount of effort.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56791528298107460302018-04-12T16:40:32.596+01:002018-04-12T16:40:32.596+01:00Thanks, Timothy. I wasn't aware of your JETS a...Thanks, Timothy. I wasn't aware of your JETS article, so thanks for pointing that out. It seems to touch on similar issues raised in Larsen's JSNT article from 2017 (which Gurry linked to the other day): namely, how to think about publication (and the preceding stages), and what it means to point to something and say *this* is what we're talking about when we are talking about "Scripture," or *the* epistle to the Romans, or what have you (and the attributes attached to it: inspired, inerrant, authoritative, infallible, etc.). Your blog post on CSBI is also helpful. Will need to do some more thinking on that. There may be merit in pushing for more precision around terms like "autograph." What I'm ultimately after, I guess, is a comprehensive "theory of everything" that accounts in a more robust way for the data as we have it (both OT and NT).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5095922373277871262018-04-12T16:30:31.488+01:002018-04-12T16:30:31.488+01:00Thanks, Stephen. I think you're right in terms...Thanks, Stephen. I think you're right in terms of the basic notion behind inspiration and how *that* differs from the downstream process of transmission. And yes the question of sources is a different matter, but I think it's nevertheless part of the comprehensive picture (e.g., I did a presentation at ETS this past November on how we should think about the "inspired" use of "non-inspired" sources [e.g., Jude's use of 1 Enoch] in terms of our broader understanding of the formation of Scripture).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231929725209666118noreply@blogger.com