Eldon Jay Epp

The Multivalence of the Term "Original Text" in New Testament Textual Criticism

One hundred and ninety-one years ago, in 1808, Johann Leonhard Hugs Introduction to the New Testament carried statements that, in part, may strike textual critics as being far ahead of their time. Hug laments the loss of all the original manuscripts of the New Testament writings “so important to the church” and wonders: “How shall we explain this singular fact?” Next, he observes that Paul and others employed secretaries, but Hug views the closing salutation, written in the authors own hand, as “sufficient to give them the value of originals.” Then, referring to the further role that scribes and correctors must have played after such a Christian writing had been dictated by its author, he says: Let us now suppose, as it is very natural to do, that the same librarius [copyist] who was employed to make this copy, made copies likewise for opulent individuals and other churches—and there was no original at all, or there were perhaps ten or more [originals] of which none could claim superiority.

The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?

The “eclectic method” in NT textual criticism is one of several disguises for the broad and basic problem of the “canons of criticism” or of the “criteria for originality” as applied to the various readings in the NT textual tradition, and in a real sense eclectic methodology—in its several forms as currently practised—is as much a symptom of basic problems in the discipline as it is a proposed and widely applied solution to those problems. By the same token, perhaps every methodological approach and even every discussion of methodology in NT textual criticism could be described as symptomatic of the problems; yet the eclectic method seems in a particularly pointed way to veil the problems of the discipline, for by its very nature it tries in one way or another to utilize all available approaches to textual problems, and in a single given case of seeking the original text it often wishes to apply to the problem several established text-critical criteria, even if these criteria have the appearance of being mutually exclusive or contradictory.

A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism

The following reassessment of present-day NT textual criticism requires, by its very nature, a brief statement of the circumstances that occasioned it. Seven years ago, in the W. H. P. Hatch Memorial Lecture at the 1973 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, I attempted in fifty minutes an adventuresome—if not audacious— assessment of the entire scope of NT textual criticism during the past century. Though this was an instructive exercise for me and one that others report as instructive also for them, it was inevitable that so bold an undertaking would elicit sharp criticism. The first hint of this came from Munster in 1976, but more clearly within the past year or so in an invitation to subscribe to a Festschrift for Matthew Black containing an article by Kurt Aland of Munster with an announced title—appearing as it did in English—that had a highly familiar ring: “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” obviously the title of the Hatch Lecture, which, following its presentation, had been published in the 1974 volume of JBL When the Festschrift itself appeared, it seemed obvious from Professor Alands article that some reassessment of the course and significance of twentieth-century NT textual criticism was in order. Late in September 1979, Alands article was reprinted in the annual report of his Munster foundation for NT textual research, now under the title of “Die Rolle des 20. Jahrhunderts in der Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Textkritik.”

Jewish-Gentile Continuity in Paul: Torah and/or Faith? (Romans 9:1–5)

Judging from his relatively few surviving letters, Paul—whether as Jew or Christian—was a person with both outer and inner conflicts. We know much less than we would like about these external confrontations and inner struggles, but time and again his letters show evidence of his wrestling with one or another serious ambivalence. Actually, it is not often a present struggle that is portrayed or revealed, for Paul writes with a remarkable maturity and with the confidence of one who has moved well beyond the tossing and turning of a continuing inner struggle. Yet at times, most notably in Romans 9–11, Pauls simple statement of a mature judgment still evokes, in the very restating of his conclusions, the intensity of the original ambivalence and conflict. A further indication that Paul was this kind of person is found, if only incidentally, in his dialectical mode of thinking: if he mentions “death,” at once he thinks of “life”; if he refers to “flesh,” immediately “spirit” crosses his mind, or if he speaks of “slaves” or “slavery,” then “sons” or “freedom” is instantly present.

Why Does New Testament Textual Criticism Matter? Refined Definitions and Fresh Directions

New Testament textual criticism often has been dismissed as an esoteric scholarly discipline that is best avoided by clergy, students–even scholars–and better left to experts. The complexities involved in fulfilling textual criticism’s first goal–identifying the earliest attainable text in each set of variant readings–can be demystified, however, (1) by facing and understanding those complexities and (2) by testing and illustrating the methods employed. Furthermore, a refined definition of the goal opens the way for correcting the long-standing neglect of rejected variant readings and for emphasising the enrichment afforded by recovering the stories that these readings have to tell about real life-issues in the early church, namely, multiple interpretations of theological questions (such as Christology) and of ethical, liturgical, and social practices (such as divorce and remarriage). The results offer fresh and fascinating glimpses of the dynamism in early Christianity.

Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of the New Testament

The accumulation of interpretive methodologies over the past century and a half has increasingly pushed textual criticism into the background of the exegesis process when, in fact, no hermeneutical procedure that takes seriously the ancient New Testament (NT) text can logically or legitimately do so. Text-critical specialists will have mixed feelings about the shortcuts and compromises made by many exegetes. Always the early versions and patristic citations must be checked in comparison with the Greek witnesses. Textual criticism would be much simpler if the NT text were preserved only in Greek manuscripts. The earliest translations were the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions and they retain the greatest importance. The use of patristic quotations is not a simple matter, for the entire text-critical process must first be applied to each of the church writings to establish the text most likely written.Keywords: Coptic version; exegesis; Greek manuscripts; Latin version; New Testament (NT); patristic quotations; textual criticism

Text-Critical Witnesses and Methodology for Isolating a Distinctive D-Text in Acts

Within the past decade, a few leading New Testament textual critics have challenged two major, long-standing convictions by urging that we should speak no longer (1) of “text-types” or (2) of two textual streams in the Acts of the Apostles. Certainly the term “type” is too rigid and definitive to describe our textual groups, and “textual clusters” is more appropriate. The present essay concerns whether dual texts can be identified certifiably in Acts, thereby distinguishing a “D-Textual Cluster” from an alternate cluster headed by Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus ( א). It is clear that all D-Text Primary witnesses are mixed texts that, over time in various ways, have been conformed and assimilated to the increasingly dominant B-Cluster, as well as to the ascending Byzantine text.A fresh method, however, is proposed and illustrated at length (1) to identify a tightly cohesive group of Primary witnesses to a D-Textual Cluster, which (2) reveals that these D-Text readings virtually always are opposed by the א-B-Cluster. The result is a strong testimony to the early existence of dual textual streams in Acts that stand firmly over against one another.The fresh aspect of the method involves, for each variation -unit, (1) identifying the Primary witnesses available for a given reading; (2) counting the number supporting a presumptive D-Text reading; (3) counting those that do not; and (4) calculating the percentages of witnesses agreeing and not agreeing to the readings in question. Three or more Primary witnesses must be present in a variation-unit to be included. The global figures show that available Primary D-Text witnesses agree with one another 88% of the time on readings in 425 variation-units, while 97% of the time these readings are opposed by both א and B together.