I was just reading the entry on the “transmission of the Bible” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, OR: harvest House, 2008), 107-10 and the article concluded with this statement:
If we possessed only a handful of manuscripts for the Old and New Testaments, it would indeed be difficult to reconstruct the reading of the original. However, the large amount of textual evidence for the Old and New Testaments, while increasing the number of the textual variants, makes it easier for us to reconstruct the reading of the original text. Rather than undermining our confidence in the Bible, these variants make it possible for us to determine, with near-perfect accuracy, what God originally communicated in His Word. (p. 110)
But here’s what gets me: we all know that the we don’t have the original manuscripts, I doubt that many people in the world would dispute this, so we should be able to admit (and the author of this entry does somewhat when he says “near-perfect”) that we’ll never know the original reading of any given passage that has variants. At best we can know with precision what the earliest extant text said; but we can only guess with varying degrees of probability what the original text said. So when the Alands say that the original reading is present somewhere in all the variant readings, and this claim is repeated by men like Dan Wallace or James White, it’s at best wishful thinking. It’s a statement that will always need to be qualified with “I think” rather than “I know.” This isn’t to say that we can’t guess with a very high degree of probability, but if we’re honest, in the end we’ll always have to succumb to some kind of textual agnosticism with respect to the originals. So I said all this to say that I’m puzzled as to why anyone would defend the original reading vigorously when they know in their heart of hearts that they’ll never truly know what it is.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
I’m not sure I understand your best case scenario for the earliest extant texts. We have (by definition) extant texts, and knowing with precision what the earliest one says is simply a matter of looking at it. But that’s not textual criticism.
Nick:
I think you’d be interested in the lecture David Parker gave at Abilene Christian University “Gospel Manuscripts in the Electronic Age”. He speaks mostly about the search for the original text and how that is a lost cause.
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/acu.edu.1818538427?i=1133203392
The link is to iTunes. I don’t know if you have it but it’s worth downloading just for the lecture. Plus it’s free so it won’t cost you anything.
Bryan L
Tim: I think you’ve understood the point perfectly, we can know precisely what the earliest extant text said because we can look at it. We cannot know what the originals said because we can’t look at them. Who said anything about textual criticism, or why would it matter if that is textual criticism or not?
Bryan: Thanks for the link. I’m waiting on a copy of Vista to come so I’ll probably wait until then to download it. I don’t want to go through the trouble when I’m just going to be reloading everything in a week or two.
I humbly disagree, even while I concur with many of your sentiments! I would just say ALL knowledge is ultimatley probable and provisional (even while still real and true), so I think you could work your same argument all the way up far beyond just the originals, and to many other areas of life, too.
For a good, moderate defense that the original documents are indeed what textual criticism should pursue reconstructing, see the infallible Moises Silva’s concluding chapter in “Rethinking Textual Criticism.” To say that we can never have 100% certainty about what the complete originals were (true) doesn’t mean (false inference, that is) that we should pursue that very goal. My two cents!
Well, I guess I would ask: what’s the value in knowing what the earliest extant manuscripts read? That is, why would I care in any given case what the earliest manuscript read versus what some 15th century manuscript read?
Nick: I don’t believe that all knowledge is probable or provisional. I can know with absolute certainty what Vaticanus says because I can look at Vaticanus. I can know that my name is Nick because it’s on my birth certificate and it’s the name I answer to. These aren’t simply probable, they’re established facts. As far as saying that we should try to attain an original reading that we’ll never actually know is original, I don’t really see the point. I know that I’ll never be able to fly by flapping my arms like a bird flaps its wings; should I try anyway? I think we should be happy with probabilities and stop worrying about an unattainable original.
Tim: I don’t think the value changes if you’re talking about the autographs, does it? Isn’t that the goal of textual criticism anyway? Trying to attain the original reading? You know that you’ll never see the autographs but you still care about what the text says, right? So wouldn’t you want to get back as far as possible? But I say care about what all the manuscripts say, second century papyri fragments and 15th century codices. They all tell us something about the history of the Church and Scripture.
There is some truth in what David Parker once said: “Even the variants are inspired.” (or something to that effect)
The variants have value. They show us what the earliest Christians thought and believed. It is an attitude. There never was one fixed text.
The variants are like the soft electron shell around an atom. Perhaps even Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies here, too.
Food for thought! :-)
Hi Nick, have you read Tov’s book on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible?
Sure, all manuscripts tell us something, but that doesn’t answer the question of why you would specifically mention the earliest ones with respect to thinking about or making claims about an original text. So I would still ask, why care about (or mention specifically) the earliest texts?
In your original post, you wrote: “At best we can know with precision what the earliest extant text said; but we can only guess with varying degrees of probability what the original text said.” I would guess that the reason you mention the earliest texts rather than simply mentioning all or any manuscript is because it seems like the earlier the text, the more likely it represents the original. But then we’re right back where we started, namely, making educated guesses about what Paul would have originally wrote. And that’s all textual criticism is doing: in the process of attempting to surmise the original text, saying “we’ve looked at the earliest texts, can we do something else? we’ve looked at what the majority of texts read, can we do something else?” etc.
As far as probabilistic knowledge goes, you also said in your post: “we should be able to admit that we’ll never know the original reading of any given passage that has variants.” But why qualify that statement? If your position is that we can’t know the original because we don’t have the autographs, then that’s as much true for the places where there are variants as the places where there aren’t. It’s possible that what Paul wrote in Romans is completely different from any manuscript we have today. We don’t have the autograph, so there’s really know way to know for sure. So unless we come up with a model for knowing things that does not wholly depend on being able to see them for ourselves, there’s as little reason to make claims about what Paul (or Mark or John or whomever) wrote as there is to make claims about the original text.
P.S. Sorry for the long comment. I know how you feel about them.
Wieland: Thanks. I’ll chew on that for a while. :-)
Richard: No, but I would like to. I tend to focus on the NT but I desperately need to get back into studying the OT and all things related.
Tim: The quest for the original reading is a quest for the earliest text, no? My only point is that in that quest the best we can do with regard to actually knowing is the earliest extant text. We have no absolute guarantee that this is what Paul or Luke or anyone else originally wrote, but again, that’s my point, we know this, so why speak about the originals at all? As to your last point I agree. There really is no way to know for sure. I would be fine with removing the qaulification “that has variants” from the original post. And don’t worry about the long comment, (1) It wasn’t that long, and (2) I really only mind them when they’re off topic or when someone is using my combox as their personal soapbox.
Nick: You said,
The quest for the original reading is a quest for the earliest text, no?
Not sure I would agree with you on this. Now perhaps it’s because I know more about the OT than the NT in terms of textual criticism, but chew on this comment by John Anderson
I completely agree with this post, Nick (as I’m sure you could have imagined). I’ve always been mystified by the Alands’ absolute conviction that the original readings are always present within an array of variants, especially given the fact that we have virtually no manuscripts from the most dynamic period in the life of any text (its first century or so of existence).
I would agree with Richard, however, in stating that in terms of the manuscripts we now have, the quest for the original reading is not necessarily a quest for the earliest text. One example which might be invoked here is Minuscule 33 (the “Queen of the Minuscules”), which dates to the 9th century but represents the early, Alexandrian text-type and thus possesses superior readings to other manuscripts which precede it. While the earliest extant witnesses are extremely valuable, and often may contain the original reading, we’ve got to weigh them against everything else that we’ve got.
If you’re really interested in this stuff, you’ve absolutely got to read Parker’s The Living Text of the Gospels. It’s good stuff. :-)
Richard: I think that Anderson is talking about something different with respect to canon than what I’m talking about. The way I was using ‘earliest text’ was with respect to the final form of the text once its author was done with it. So e.g., if Paul was writing 1Corinthians and then went back and decided to add 14:33-35 after everything else was finished, then the final form including 14:33-35 is ‘original’ or the ‘earliest text.’
Matthew: I’ll check out Parker’s book sooner or later, thanks for the recommendation. As I said to Richard, I was using ‘earliest text’ to mean the final form of the text, not with regard to the physical mss themselves (this is the problem with not being a text critic, I sometimes use the wrong terminology). I completely agree with what you’ve said about Miniscule 33 and in fact I made a similar point to a friend of mine the other week, i.e., that the earliest doesn’t always equal best.
Nick: Thanks for the clarification. Let’s assume that St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and then 14:33-35 was added after his death but accepted as canonical by the Church, why would 14:33-35 not be the final form and what St. Paul wrote an earlier version of the final form?
So, 1 Corinthians (minus 14:33-35) was written and circulated, then some time later it was rewritten/revised and expanded (adding 14:33-35), and recirculated. These second final forms, however, did not always trump or erase the first final form, and thus we have multiple, divergent MSS, but the latter is the authoritative text as it has been deemed canonical by the Church.
I will rephrase the first paragraph as:
Let’s assume that St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and then at a leter date someone elso added 14:33-35, and this was accepted as canonical by the Church. Why then would we not say that 14:33-35 is the final form and what St. Paul wrote an earlier version of the final form?
Richard:
Related to your question I wonder how late after the original manuscript something could still be added and be considered final form? If it was later added by someone in the church other than the original author and view as canonical by the church would it still be considered the final form?
Using your example of 1 Cor 14:33-35, if this was added 50 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians by one of Paul’s disciples or 100 years later by a disciple of a disciple and the church then considered it canonical would that text be considered final?
Going a little bit further what if this happened but it wasn’t accepted by all of the churches, but not because it was rejected by them but because the addition or change in the original text was never seen by them and they never had a chance to accept or reject it?
Bryan L
Bryan, all good questions.
My thinking would be inline with Waltke’s article “Aims of OT Textual Criticism” but I would not want to say that the same issues apply,
So when I come to look at NT TC (something which I am not overly familar with) I am approaching it from asking OT TC questions.
Hence for me, whether Paul wrote 14:33-35, or Mark wrote the last section in his Gospel, or if John wrote 1 Jn. 5:7 is less of an issue for me, the big question is “Has the Church received it?”
So Barr notes,
If you (or Nick) know of any good books on NT textual criticism then please mention them! I am asking questions rather than providing answers!!
The next question then for me is “Who is the church” that receives it? Every church? The majority of individual churches? The larger representative traditions and denominations? Are we talking about just today or throughout history (does history trump modern consensus for now until the consensus can last for long enough to be history)?
Also what about other texts that are not apart of the Bible but which the church has historically received like the apocrypha or other traditions?
I don’t know any books on TC for the NT. Sorry.
Bryan L
By the Church I am referring to the catholic Church (not the RCC), and so I would see the Spirit of God working through the Church to determine the canon.
So with regards to history; Christianity is an historical faith and the Spirit was working through the Church back in the first four centuries, hence I would say that their decisions are to be heeded now and for all time.
In terms of the apocrypha, the catholic Church has generally received them as being important but not inspired, obviously there was the disagreement between Jerome and Augustine.
I am not sure what you mean by “other traditions”.
Richard: We could say that, but I’m using it to mean what the author himself wrote. The issue of the canon is tricky, because things can be canonical that weren’t written by the original author of a work. I think canonical questions and text critical questions will yield distinct answers even if there are at times overlap.
Bryan: All good questions, and like I said to Richard, the canon is tricky. There’s no such thing as a single canon of Scripture since various members (by which I mean churches) of Christ’s body all have different collections.
Good introductory books on NT TC:
Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism
A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results
The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism
David Alan Black has one on Textual Criticism that is probably even more simple to read than the one’s listed.