tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8423913226003575275..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Poll: What’s the Goal of Textual Criticism?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37176200422289096882015-05-24T20:38:19.074+01:002015-05-24T20:38:19.074+01:00Ron Hendel of the Hebrew Bible Critical Edition fr...Ron Hendel of the Hebrew Bible Critical Edition frequently uses the term "corrected archetype," which I quite like as an editor's goal. Mike is right that it seems very similar to the "initial text," except perhaps that it seems to be focused on a single textual entity which at least in theory did exist in the past. Sometimes when people speak of the "initial text" it seems like they are referring to a collection of readings judged to have given rise to the other preserved readings, but that this text never existed even in theory in a single textual artifact. <br /><br />I would also agree that terms like "original text" and "authorial text" become pretty much meaningless when working with the OT, because the composition histories and questions of authorship are so complicated, creating multiple editorial stages without any obvious points to be so labelled in contrast with other stages. "Final form" (or something indicating the completion of a book in forms recognizable to us) is perhaps more helpful, but still a bit arbitrary, depending on how you define it.Drew Longacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654439701997039055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50756944257557005332015-05-24T05:34:52.521+01:002015-05-24T05:34:52.521+01:00As I said in the opening sentences of my introduct...As I said in the opening sentences of my introduction to Equitable Eclecticism (which I recently made available at Academia):<br /><br />"The textual criticism of the Gospels is a scientific task which has two goals. The primary goal is the reconstruction of the text of each Gospel in its original form, that is, the form in which it was initially received by the church. The secondary goal is the reconstruction of the transmission-history of the text. In order to apply Hort’s axiom, “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings,” these two goals should be pursued simultaneously. The consideration of individual variant-units should never be completely detached from the question of the relative values, or weights, of the witnesses, or from the question of how groups of variants became characteristic readings of text-types. Accurate text-critical judgments will assist in the estimation of the relative values of witnesses, and in the reconstruction of the text’s transmission-history. Likewise, accurate assignments of relative value to the witnesses, combined with accurate reconstructions of the text’s transmission-history, will assist specific text-critical decisions."<br /><br />I think that applies to New Testament textual criticism in general.<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49935228480508926992015-05-22T22:28:30.171+01:002015-05-22T22:28:30.171+01:00Well, I was a "none of the above" mainly...Well, I was a "none of the above" mainly for the reasons Stephen Carlson articulated. However, I'd be reasonably happy tracing such a history from either an "initial" or an "earliest attainable text". I have far too many problems about "original", "authorial" (and whether there's a distinction between those) or "canonical" (whose canon?) to even approach those!Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87946279569655033962015-05-22T22:28:21.608+01:002015-05-22T22:28:21.608+01:00On a side note, I think that the picture of Chris ...On a side note, I think that the picture of Chris Farley explains well the use of quotation marks around the term original-text. ;)Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38506984664938453532015-05-22T21:41:10.473+01:002015-05-22T21:41:10.473+01:00If you just want an edition or a translation, the ...If you just want an edition or a translation, the autographs would theoretically suffice. But textual history is also a history of reception, and often sheds valuable light on challenges in the biblical text and its interpretation by Christian communities. For many of us, that's also an incredibly important area of study.Jeremiah Coogannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48488547889577317612015-05-22T21:30:44.941+01:002015-05-22T21:30:44.941+01:00Mike, thanks for putting that up. It's a great...Mike, thanks for putting that up. It's a great (and pertinent) article. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/12533585/_From_Original_Text_to_Initial_Text_The_Traditional_Goal_of_New_Testament_Textual_Criticism_in_Contemporary_Discussion._" title="Read Michael Holme's article on the original text and initial text" rel="nofollow">Here's the link</a> for those who haven't read it.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11369356197641159582015-05-22T21:23:41.026+01:002015-05-22T21:23:41.026+01:00Re OT textual criticism: the editors of the Oxford...Re OT textual criticism: the editors of the Oxford Hebrew Bible--the one current project I know of that is seeking to produce a critical eclectic text (or texts, as the evidence requires) of the Hebrew Bible--use language that is very similar (if not, in effect, identical) to the concept of the "Initial Text."<br />Mike HolmesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85392656770424164712015-05-22T21:13:49.021+01:002015-05-22T21:13:49.021+01:00An interesting discussion, but one that suffers fr...An interesting discussion, but one that suffers from a lack of definitions for key terms (e.g., "original text"). At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, permit me to suggest an essay that might be helpful in this regard:<br />"From 'Original Text' to 'Initial Text': The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion." <br />I have recently posted this in Academia.edu, so access should not be a problem.<br />Mike Holmes<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24056216514682721962015-05-22T21:09:10.367+01:002015-05-22T21:09:10.367+01:00True, if we had the autographs (and knew that that...True, if we had the autographs (and knew that that's what they were), we wouldn't need TC. What I'm saying is that the text of autographs is the goal, and that this text is the text of published edition. Peter Gurry said, "the question is not whether you think such a goal is always attainable," so full confidence in our ability to reconstruct the text of the original may not be within our reach in every instance, but it is still the goal.Stephen Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46986212025591568072015-05-22T20:57:20.241+01:002015-05-22T20:57:20.241+01:00The only way to get back to the original text is t...The only way to get back to the original text is to literally find the original autographs. So obviously in realistic terms you can only get back as far as the first published edition. If you actually found the autographs (the only way to get back to the original text) then you would actually not need textual criticism. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07057420131874808027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-131974241203305762015-05-22T20:49:20.723+01:002015-05-22T20:49:20.723+01:00"True but isn't the point of understandin..."True but isn't the point of understanding the transmission that when we translate we can intelligently pick a particular reading?"<br /><br />Yes, so that WE (not the editors) can pick the correct reading. I see the point of textual criticism as being to build the apparatus, not to pick the correct variants for us. After all NA27 had the correct reading "Lord" in Jude 6 and NA28 has jumped to the wrong one "Jesus"....that's all the editors of the body of the text do, jump back and forth pointlessly. Its the apparatus alone that has value. We can pick the correct reading ourselves. We don't need to appoint popes to do that for us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07057420131874808027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86345661243867722982015-05-22T20:48:38.427+01:002015-05-22T20:48:38.427+01:00Well full disclosure, it was a NT dictionary. So f...Well full disclosure, it was a NT dictionary. So far as I know, OT scholars don't use the term initial text do they?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88086842513795858452015-05-22T20:06:17.819+01:002015-05-22T20:06:17.819+01:00I think the responses to your query would have bee...I think the responses to your query would have been less clear cut had you asked scholars who had worked on critical editions of the Hebrew Bible and (especially) its Old Greek translations.<br /><br />I notice that the article that prompted this was on "textual criticism," and not specifically "New Testament textual criticism."Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19968360814569531652015-05-22T19:41:51.179+01:002015-05-22T19:41:51.179+01:00In I Tim 5:18 Paul quotes Lk 10:7 as Scripture, an...In I Tim 5:18 Paul quotes Lk 10:7 as Scripture, and in II Pet 3:15-16 Peter, a contemporary of Paul, recognizes Paul's epistles as Scripture. Recognition of books of the Bible as inspired was often, or perhaps always, immediate. Thus the canonical Scriptures as such = the authorial text. General Jewish attitudes toward Scripture (most of the earliest of Christians being ethnic Jews from a Jewish milieu) and the rapid and wide dissemination of NT books (Col was early shared with the Laodicaeans and Rev was sent to several churches, for example) combine to make the authorial text = the original text (which would also be the initial text, to the extent that the initial text refers to the original text of a NT book as such, though the term could, I suppose, be used to refer to the initial form of a secondary texttype). The earliest attainable text would ideally equal the original text, though any theory must acknowledge that equal confidence is not possible in the case of all variants. Thus, most of these terms seem to work out to the same thing. However, our interest is not on what has been widely used in the church per se but on what the Holy Spirit directed certain men to put down on paper. Short answer: The goal should be the original text.Stephen Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34798087872223595322015-05-22T17:58:48.013+01:002015-05-22T17:58:48.013+01:00I agree with Stephen's assertion about the who...I agree with Stephen's assertion about the whole scope of transmission history. For me, "authorial text" has a preferable angle, simply as one who focuses on text critical issues in historical-critical context. I would pitch "authorial text" for a given work against "canonical text," which is at least notionally the form that is most distant from its authorial origin. However, "What did Paul write," or "What does a consistent author of Hebrews look like from a linguistic standpoint" involves work outside of NTTC even if we return to it. But that says to me that the real goal of NTTC probably looks more like "earliest attainable."Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77724087590336560772015-05-22T17:55:04.585+01:002015-05-22T17:55:04.585+01:00Matthew, it is always helpful for people to explai...Matthew, it is always helpful for people to explain the mistakes I regularly make. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-14166457104037081982015-05-22T17:49:50.356+01:002015-05-22T17:49:50.356+01:00Peter, is it really necessary for someone to unpac...Peter, is it really necessary for someone to unpack the mistake you just made? Or are you all going to restrict yourselves to the gospels from now on?Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16288056853928041582015-05-22T17:45:20.830+01:002015-05-22T17:45:20.830+01:00I do think though that we should speak in terms of...I do think though that we should speak in terms of primary and secondary goals. <br /><br />I do think the primary goal is to recover, as best as possible, the original text.<br /><br />The original text should be the same thing as the authorial text, though authorial text has a little bit of a fuzzy definition depending on the nature of each book's composition process. <br /><br />As well, manuscripts alone may not conduct us all the way back through the transmission process to the original text; extant manuscripts alone may come up short at some points, which is why I advocate the use of conjecture at those points.<br /><br />I like how Stephen has phrased the goal of understanding the transmission process, though I think I would see that as either a secondary goal, or a means to the primary goal - still of independent value either way.ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17310895604715766143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88666553972539472062015-05-22T17:36:48.764+01:002015-05-22T17:36:48.764+01:00Awesome comment Peter!Awesome comment Peter!ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17310895604715766143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16644546994908950772015-05-22T15:23:15.392+01:002015-05-22T15:23:15.392+01:00Maybe that is implicit in the adjectiveMaybe that is implicit in the adjectivePeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63223729490591738232015-05-22T14:59:15.344+01:002015-05-22T14:59:15.344+01:00Perhaps the name of this blog should be changed to...Perhaps the name of this blog should be changed to "Evangelical Textual Criticism of the New Testament."Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81123280418212734722015-05-22T14:12:21.634+01:002015-05-22T14:12:21.634+01:00Thanks for your comment. I really wanted to unders...Thanks for your comment. I really wanted to underscore that *the* goal (note the definite singular, which is kind of self-limiting) shouldn't be so limited or the field will suffer for it, as it did throughout much of the 20th century. Yes, the entirety includes the whole shebang, including the original, authorial, initial text, but also other texts throughout the history of transmission can be studied and reconstructed.<br /><br />As for your poll question, I'll be a polite guest and try to give you an answer, which I gave some thought to in my monograph. While the whole textual transmission is properly within the purview of the field, a lot of our customers (translators, exegetes, theologians, linguists, historians, etc.) want a text that is a product of a more or less identifiable author, place, and time, rather than a melange of elements from generally less identifiable hands, places, and times. My preferred term for this is an "authorial text" because it uses internal evidence, which, to the extent it works, tends to distinguish authors from scribes. I don't see any conceptual difference between an authorial text and an original text. I also don't see how our evidence and methods can practically distinguish an authorial/original text from an initial text from or even the earliest attainable text. Unless they are tied to the outputs of particular text-critical methods, they seem indistinguishable to me. I have no idea what the canonical text is supposed to refer to: the text was already multiform when canon was recognized.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85508056259891825732015-05-22T12:49:29.251+01:002015-05-22T12:49:29.251+01:00Stephen, this is a fair point and I probably shoul...Stephen, this is a fair point and I probably should have said something about it. I didn't intend this to convey that this is the <em>only</em> goal of textual criticism. Perhaps I could have said "what is the <em>textual</em> goal of textual criticism." But that sounds awkward to me. <br /><br />Still, I would point out that you can't talk about the "entirety of the transmission of a text" without telling us what constitutes the "entirety." And doesn't that require you to answer the question posed here?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20598591015641310892015-05-22T12:26:31.002+01:002015-05-22T12:26:31.002+01:00This is why I find David Parker's article in T...This is why I find David Parker's article in <em>The Textual History of the Greek NT</em> so interesting but also confusing. Elsewhere he says there is no <em>single</em> original text of the Gospels, but he is quite happy to reconstruct a <em>single</em> initial text. I sometimes wonder if this isn't a reflection of some kind of discomfort with textual authority on Parker's part. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66447542078365190092015-05-22T11:41:23.800+01:002015-05-22T11:41:23.800+01:00Perhaps it is a bit more circular, since one needs...Perhaps it is a bit more circular, since one needs to understand the transmission history in order to arrive at the original text.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com