It's All about Variants: A Variant- Conscious Approach to Eldon Jay Epp Harvard Divinity School*

The goal of New Testament textual criticism would appear to be simple enough: to restore the original text written by each author of the New Testament books. Upon examination, however, the notion of simplicity vanishes immediately and each of the key terms here—"restore," "original," "text," and "author"—has its problematic aspects, but more importantly the simply stated goal itself turns out to be inadequate. Grist for the text-critical mill consists of textual readings or variants, which for the relatively small collection of writings called the New Testament are not merely in the hundreds or thousands, or even the tens of thousands, but run to perhaps a third of a million. They stem from the nearly 5,500 Greek manuscripts, some 10,000 versional manuscripts, and innumerable patristic citations of New Testament passages. Over time, variants have been valued differently by various textual critics depending largely upon their views of the goal of textual criticism. When that goal is defined as restoring the original text of the various authors, variants tend to have a binary character—they are either in or out, that is, accepted or rejected. If accepted they assume a position in the privileged critical text that often has been labeled "original," but if rejected, variants are relegated to the apparatus at the foot of the page (in much smaller type!). At the opposite end of the spectrum, when the goal of textual criticism is to explore the wealth of information about the history and thought of the early churches that is disclosed by variant readings, then all meaningful variants are held in much higher esteem. Therefore, the issue of goals is closely interrelated with the value

*This article was written while the author was Visiting Professor of New Testament at HDS.

HTR 10O 3 (2007) 275-308 276 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW attributed to variants, and vice versa: the perceived worth of variants also shapes the definition of text-critical goals. These are the fascinating issues to be explored here.

• Variants and 'Original Text" in New Testament Textual Criticism Since the Renaissance, New Testament textual critics have assumed responsibility for providing critical editions of the New Testament writings, namely, texts with an accompanying apparatus showing the variations among the manuscripts and indicating the support for each variant. Since variants occupy central stage in this process, it is essential to understand their nature, and this requires careful definitions of the terminology employed and thoughtful delineation of related concepts. A larger issue arises when those who use the critical editions—and the textual critics themselves—ask what the resultant text represents. As noted above, the traditional answer affirms that establishing "the original text" is the goal, although frequently proffered with qualifications and at times very differently formulated. The goal of textual criticism, therefore, also requires clarification.

A. Classification of Readings and Variants Ernest Cadman Colwell's seminal articles in the mid-1960s began a process of clarifying several concepts basic to the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, including grouping manuscripts, quantitative measurement of manuscript relationships, the nature of text-types, and classifying textual variants.1 All of these approaches are essential for assessing the value to be placed on the thousands of manuscripts transmitting the text from earliest times to the invention of printing and therefore each approach contributes to the methodologies utilized in constructing a critical edition. Colwell was led to investigate these matters in his role as chair of the American Executive Committee of the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), beginning when he was president of the (1945-1951), then vice president of (1951-1957) and finally president of the School of Theology at Claremont (1957-1968), with the Project's headquarters moving with him. The IGNTP, however, did not intend to produce a critical text but only a comprehensive apparatus of variants that would facilitate the subsequent construction of a critical text. Decisions were necessary about the kinds of variants to be included in this extensive apparatus, and Colwell, with his collaborator, Ernest

1 Ernest Cadman Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri A Study in the Corruption of the Text," in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed J Philip Hyatt, Nashville, Tenn Abingdon, 1965) 370-89, repr as "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits A Study of ?p45, $p66, $p7\" in idem, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New Testament Tools and Studies 9, Leiden Brill, 1969) 106-24, Ernest C Colwell and Ernest W Tune, "Variant Readings Classification and Use," Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964) 253-61, repr as "Method in Classifying and Evaluating Variant Readings," in Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 96-105 ELDON JAY EPP 277

W. Tune, first explored the unit of variation, termed by them a "variation-unit,"2 which is a segment of text containing "at least two variant forms" consisting of "elements of expression in the Greek text which regularly exist together,"3 each supported by at least two Greek manuscripts. The segment of text, in other words, consists of a normal and proper grammatical combination, although always seeking the shortest segment that can accommodate all the variants at that point. The extent of the variation-unit depends, therefore, on the nature of the variation in the individual manuscripts in each instance; for example, the variation unit may contain a noun, or an article and a noun, or an article, a noun, and a verb, etc., or may involve more complex constructions. Clarity in grasping the character of the variation is always the objective, so that the reader can assess the support among the array of witnesses. Colwell and Tune then classified variants as either "insignificant" or "significant." Nonsense readings, dislocated readings (clear, demonstrable scribal errors), and singular readings (found in only one Greek manuscript) were labeled "insignificant" and were to be excluded from the critical apparatus, for they do not aid "in establishing group relationships of manuscripts."4 Singular readings, however, were considered valuable for assessing the characteristics of the scribe or scribes of an individual manuscript—studies pursued for $p45, $p66, and $p75 by Colwell himself,5 and by others since then.6 Significant variants, on the other hand, were "meaningful" readings, those that can be construed grammatically and not only make sense, but usually offer an altered or alternative picture. Naturally, agreement to various aspects of these proposals was not universal, and subsequently the New Testament Textual Criticism Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) dedicated an annual session7 to definitions of pivotal

2 See Colwell and Tune, "Variant Readings," 254 = Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 97 3 Colwell and Tune, "Variant Readings," 254-56, quotations from 254 and 255, respectively = Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 97-100, quotations from 97 and 99, respectively For subsequent refinements in defining "variation unit", see note 7, below 4 Colwell and Tune, "Variant Readings," 260 = Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 104 Grouping manuscripts is essential in managing data from the enormous number of New Testament manuscripts, especially those of later date On variant classification, see "Variant Readings," 257-61 = Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 100-5 5 Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri," 370-89 = Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 106-24 6 Notably James R Royse, "Scribal Habits in the Transmission of New Testament Texts," in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (ed Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2, Berkeley, Calif Graduate Theological Union, 1979) 139-61, idem, "Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed Bart D Ehrman and Michael W Holmes, Studies and Documents 46, Grand Rapids, Mich Eerdmans, 1995) 239-52, idem, Scribal Habits in Early New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 1, Leiden Brill, 2007) 7 At the 1974 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Washington, D C The two papers published were by Gordon D Fee, "On the Types, Classification, and Presentation of Textual Variation," in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (ed Eldon Jay 278 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW terms employed in the discipline, basically reexamining what is meant by a textual "reading" and by a textual "variant." As it turned out, the task was no simple matter, for amon g the questions were the following: Whe n i s a reading a variant? What are the limits of a "variation unit"? Are orthographic changes, especially in proper nouns, significant o r insignificant? D o singular readings (i n Greek manuscripts) remain singula r whe n the same variant appears i n a version? This last question has particular relevance, for example, in identifying constituents of the fragmented D-text (or "Western" text) of Acts, where Codex Bezae (its best but certainly not a perfect representative) has numerous "singular" readings that find support in Old Latin, Old Syriac, or Coptic witnesses. For instance, Coptic G67 supports Codex Bezae i n several "singular " readings. 8 Shoul d these still b e calle d "singular"? I think not. Variants cam e t o th e forefron t als o wit h th e renewed interes t i n so-calle d theologically motivated variants in the New Testament textual tradition, requiring fresh approache s i n distinguishin g betwee n "intentional " and "unintentional " alterations to the text. These categories overlap with "significant" and "insignificant" variants, for, whil e intentiona l changes are inevitably significan t o r meaningful , some unintentiona l variants, suc h a s th e ofte n unconsciou s harmonizations to parallel texts or conformity to Septuagintal or liturgical forms , are also readings that make sense.

Epp and Gordon D Fee , SD 45, Grand Rapids, Mich Eerdmans , 1993 ) 62-79, and Eldon Jay Epp , "Toward th e Clarificatio n o f th e Term 'Textua l Variant,' " i n Studies in New Testament Language and Text Essays in Honour of George D Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed Jame s Keit h Elliott, Novum Testamentum Supplement s 44 , Leiden Brill , 1976 ) 153-7 3 = Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method, 47-61 = Epp, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism Collected Essays, 1962-2004 (NovTSu p 116 , Leide n Brill , 2005 ) 101-2 4 Th e othe r presenters wer e Vinton A Deann g an d James Τ Clemon s 8 The D-text o f Acts illustrates , fo r me , that its "singula r readings " i n Greek (notabl y i n Code x Bezae) should no t be s o designated whe n the y find suppor t m Old Latin, Old Synac , and/o r Coptic versions because 1 ) variants i n these versions s o often suppor t Code x Bezae' s vanations elsewher e and also support themes well established i n the Greek tradition, thereby suggesting that these versions frequently preserv e remnant s o f a n earlier , no w los t Gree k basi s A t th e sam e time , 2 ) genuin e singular reading s m the D-text, whether i n Codex Beza e o r in the early versions , should b e include d as textua l witnesse s whe n the y ar e m tune with theme s discovere d i n better atteste d variant s Th e recently publishe d Copti c G67 (= mae i n Nestle-Aland 27 an d copmeg i n UBSGNT 4—both signifyin g "Middle Egyptian") i s of special significanc e in these respects se e Eldon Jay Epp, "Coptic Manuscript G67 an d the Role o f Code x Beza e a s a Western Witness i n Acts," JBL 8 5 (1966 ) 197-212 , see th e improved versio n i n Epp , Perspectives, 15-39 , o n it s suppor t o f previousl y singula r reading s i n Codex Bezae , se e 199-20 0 = Epp, Perspectives, 17-1 9 G6 7 was edite d b y Hans-Marti n Schenke , ed, Apostelgeschichte 1,1-15,3 im mittelagyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Glazier) (Texte un d Untersuchunge n 137 , Berli n Akademi e Verlag , 1991 ) O n G67 , se e als o Epp, "Anti - Judaic Tendencie s m th e D-Tex t o f Act s Fort y Year s o f Conversation, " i n The Book of Acts as Church History Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations, trans o f Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeschichte Text, Texttraditionen und antike Auslegungen (e d Tobia s Nickla s an d Michae l Tilly, Beihefte zu r Zeitschnfte fu r di e neutestamenthche Wissenschaft 120 , Berli n Gruyter , 2003) 117-22 = Epp, Perspectives, 706-1 2 ELDON JAY EPP 279

Although definitions frequently are clarifying and useful in moving discussions forward, they do not in themselves or automatically provide solutions to the issues they address. Yet, in initiating this set of sophisticated, methodical definitions of variants, Colwell was a pioneer, and New Testament textual criticism has been both facilitated and enriched by them and by the further explorations that they have engendered.

B. Concepts of "The Original Text" It may surprise some that clarifying the nature of variants with precision came only recently in the long history of textual criticism, but certainly it is more surprising to learn that a term and concept at the very heart of the discipline was not subjected to serious scrutiny (that is, seeking clear definition) until a dozen years ago, namely "the original text." And again the New Testament Textual Criticism Section of SBL provided a venue for this discussion under the theme, "What Do We Mean by 'Original' Text?"9 It is not feasible here to review these findings in any detail, but among the major points established was the recognition that in some passages with multiple variants it is impossible to isolate a single "original" reading. It became apparent, however, that the existing variants in such passages vividly reveal ethical and theological concerns of the early churches.10 In addition, it became clear that the very notion of "the original text" is elusive and that "original" must be recognized as multilayered and multivalent.11 For example, in certain portions of the New Testament, it is necessary to speak of "predecessor textforms" (or, loosely, "predecessor 'originals'")—which precede but, when altered in new circumstances by scribes, may in turn be succeeded by "interpretive textforms"—and still later, when acquiring authoritative status, they will become "canonical textforms," each of which is an "original" in some real sense.12 Yet, the issue is even more complex. In every reading of every text, it is difficult to be certain what the author intended,13 for each reader attributes to the text his or her own meaning that is created out of that reader's whole-life context and experiences. Such a meaning/reading may be significantly different from that of another reader, and different also from the writer. At that point both the writer and the reader are "authors," and this renders both "author" and "text" problematic. In

9 The 1998 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Fla , focused on a paper of mine, published as "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 245-81 = Epp, Perspectives, 551-93 The three respondents at the session were Larry W Hurtado, William L Petersen, and David C Parker 10 David C Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1997) esp 75-94 11 Epp, "Multivalence," esp 255-77 = Epp, Perspectives, 562-88 12 Ibid , esp 276-77 = Epp, Perspectives, 586-88 13 For an instructive discussion of "authorial intention" in the textual criticism of modern English literature, see Jerome J McGann, A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Charlottesville, Va University Press of Virginia, 1992) 55-75 280 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW a text-critical context, this situation translates also into the difficulty of affirming the intentions of scribes when meaningful variants occur. At the same time, the nature and goals of textual criticism are called into question. For instance, if the goal of textual criticism—as traditionally viewed—is to restore the "original" text, which textform (or which "original") is in view—a predecessor textform, or an interpretive form, or the canonical textform? Or, if the purpose is to recover what the author actually wrote—to cite another traditional formulation—which "author" is in view? This is particularly vexing when multiple variants in a passage reveal various "authorial" presentations of a text, and when their respective levels of priority cannot be sorted out with any assurance. Or, if the goal—as sometimes stated—is merely to remove scribal errors,14 including meaningful scribal alterations, and if a manuscript containing such changes already has achieved an authoritative status in a church or a region (as would be the case with virtually every manuscript read in churches), which authoritative "original" is our focus? Is it the unaltered ("predecessor") text (if that can be determined), or is it the resultant ("interpretive") text—now with variants—in use at a given time and place?15 And if one version of a passage has been accorded authoritative status in one church or region, but another rendering (with other variants and a different sense) has been used canonically in another location, which "original" text, which canonical text, which author's text is to be accredited as "the" text of the New Testament? And, one might add, which of the differing authoritative texts has the "errors"? Or, is perhaps none of them an error, but all simply reflect differing interpretations through evolving circumstances in the churches. As a matter of fact, the contextual use of the New Testament text and thereby its enrichment over time are seriously underappreciated factors in textual transmission, for, as the late

14 For example, Hort in Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vols , London Macmillan, 1881-1882) 2 3 "Textual criticism is always negative, because its final aim is virtually nothing more than the detection and rejection of error " See Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2d ed , New York Oxford University Press, 1968) 186 "rectify the errors", idem and Bart D Ehrman [cited hereafter as Metzger-Ehrman] (4th ed , New York Oxford University Press, 2005) 250 Of course, the subtitle in all editions already suggests the same goal to study the transmission of the text, to find its corruptions (mostly errors), and to restore the proper text This traditional view is described poignantly by McGann as an attempt "to repair the wrecks of history by using a historical method" The ancient works were alienated from the present not so much in their distance from us as in the interruption of our view caused by the corrupting process of transmission To be put in touch with these authors and their works, the historical method proposed not an elimination of the distance but a clearing of the view take away the textual contaminants, remove the interfering scribal and typographical presence, and the autonomous original will appear before us (Critique of Modern Textual Criticism, 40-41) 15 Numerous examples of such "original" readings and their interpretative alteration may be found in Bart D Ehrman's perceptive and influential work on The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York Oxford University Press, 1993) passim ELDON JAY EPP 281

William L. Petersen emphasized, "the most reliable guide to the development of Christian theology is the ever changing text of the New Testament."16 The breadth and depth of the situation disclosed by these questions and implications about "original text" and "author," and hence the extent and complexity of the problems facing New Testament textual critics, are evident in the truism that each copying of a text, each scribal alteration to a manuscript, and each translation of a text produces a new "original."17 My proposed definitions for the various textforms that develop in the process of transmission were designed to provoke discussion on a subject that, again, had received little systematic consideration: What do we mean—what can we mean—by "the original text" of the New Testament? To be sure, many handbooks and scholars of textual criticism have long acknowledged, albeit subtilely, that a problem lurks behind the term "original text," for often the phrase is enclosed within quotation marks, a tacit admission of its polysemy or its elusive (and perhaps also illusive) nature, or elsewhere the term is expanded to "the most likely original text." This introduction of ambiguity into the customary, straightforward definition of the goal of New Testament textual criticism alerts us at once to the need for clearer statements and—most importantly—for recognition of complexity in these text-critical issues. In addition, it calls for tolerance and acceptance of this very ambiguity itself. As I have suggested elsewhere, these recent explorations have occasioned the loss of innocence in New Testament textual criticism and have moved the discipline into a new era.18 And, like most new epochs, this one will be unsettling for some, will open new vistas for many, but must be recognized as a reality by all.

• The Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism If the simple and simply stated goal of textual criticism, as traditionally formulated, has serious attendant difficulties, what goal is possible theoretically and feasible practically? And however that goal is reformulated, will it be sufficiently broad to embrace current views of what variants can offer to New Testament textual criticism, and will it be adequate for the future?

16 William L Petersen, review of Bart D Ehrmann's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, in Journal of Religion 74 (1994) 563-64 17 This claim requires no documentation, although it calls for definition and discussion of the term "original " That "every translation is necessarily also an interpretation," is explored m its numerous facets by Katharina Reiss, Translation Criticism—The Potentials & Limitations Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment (trans Erroll F Rhodes, Manchester, UK St Jerome, New York American Bible Society, 2000), 107 [italics in original], cf 90-92, 106-8 18 Epp, "Multivalent," 280-81 = Epp, Perspectives, 591-92 282 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

A. Seeking the "Original" or the "Earliest Attainable" Text Atypical modern description of the purpose of New Testament textual criticism may be found in the second edition of Léon Vaganay's An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, revised and updated by Christian-Bernard Amphoux: By "textual criticism" is meant any methodical and objective study which aims to retrieve the original form of a text or at least the form closest to the original.19 This definition retains both the simple, traditional notion that textual criticism aims to recover the original text, as well as a form of the frequent modifying phrase, "or the most likely original," which sometimes may be modified further as a search for "the earliest attainable text." Such qualifying phrases, of course, are not recent modifications of the goal, but can be found already, for example, in the manuals of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles ( 1854), Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1882), Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1886), Eberhard Nestle (1902), and virtually every one since then.20 Some manuals of New Testament textual criticism, however, are more rigid and lack a qualifying phrase. One example is offered by J. Harold Greenlee's Introduction, a fine handbook for a brief volume, where the formulation adheres strictly to the view that:

19 Léon Vaganay, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (rev and updated by Christian-Bernard Amphoux, trans by Jenny Heimerdmger, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1991) 1, the French version has the same phraseology, Initiation à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Pans Cerf, 1986) 15, as does Léon Vaganay's 1933 edition, cf Leo [sic] Vaganay, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London Sands, 1937) 9 20 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles defines the goal as ascertaining "what the writer of any ancient work actually wrote as far as is practicable," or "as nearly as can be done on existing evidence" see his An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament With Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principles (London Bagster, 1854) 174, idem, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London Longman, Green et al, 1856) 1, and his large handbook, a rewriting and revision of Thomas Hartwell Home's An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (idem, John Ayre, and S Ρ Tregelles, 4 vols , 11th ed , London Longman , Green, et al, 1860 ) 4 1 Westcot t and Hort, New Testament in the Original Greek, 2 1 Benjami n Warfield writes , "The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of the volume" althoug h the last clause (italic s added ) often i s omitte d when others cite Warfield Benjami n Breckinridg e Warfield , An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886, 7th ed , London Hodde r & Stoughton, 1907) 1 5 Eberhar d Nestle writes, "The task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to communicate to his readers, and the method is simpl y that of tracin g the history o f th e document in question back t o its beginning, if , an d in so far as , w e have the means to do so at our command " Eberhar d Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (trans fro m 2d German ed , London William s an d Norgate, 1901 ) 15 6 Se e also Nestle's Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue Testament (Gottinge n Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht, 1909) 168 , ibi d (e d Erns t vo n Dobschutz , 4th e d , Gottingen Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht , 1923 ) 118 Fo r others, see Epp, "Multivalence," 253 η 28 = Epp, Perspectives, 56 0 η 29 ELDON JAY EPP 283

Textual criticis m i s th e stud y o f copie s o f an y writte n wor k o f whic h the autograph (th e original) i s unknown , with th e purpose o f ascertainin g the original text.21 Here the "original text" means the "autographs" (the original documents the authors wrote); moreover, Greenlee emphasizes that "if they [the autographs] were available , NT textual criticism would be unnecessary, since the original text could then be read directly."22 This assertion presents a straightforward challeng e whether the goal of textual criticism should or can be limited to a single task, namely, the recovery o f the "original" (howeve r defined), for i t dictates (implicitly, but indisputably) that textual variants not judged to be original are simply of no further value and may be discarded. To be sure, this view of rejected variants is not explicit and may not have been intended, but it follows logicall y fro m th e affirmation tha t textual criticism would be superfluous i f the autographs were accessible. The discussion t o follo w insists that such a view of variants is not only inadequate, but indefensible . A quit e differen t exampl e o f focu s o n the original tex t ca n b e foun d i n the indispensable volume by Kurt and Barbara Aland on The Text of the New Testament. The Alands, perhap s surprisingly , d o not engage i n defining th e goal o f textua l criticism excep t b y inference , possibl y becaus e th e purpose o f th e disciplin e appears t o be obvious an d mor e specificall y becaus e thei r manual i s designe d to provide "the basic informatio n necessary fo r usin g th e Greek New Testament and for formin g a n independent judgment on the many kinds o f variant readings characteristic of the New Testament textual tradition."23 But how do they view the goal? The clearest inference may come near the end of the volume in the Alands' list o f "Twelv e Basi c Rule s fo r Textua l Criticism," where numbe r one is "Onl y one reading can be original."24 It is clear from their statements elsewhere that this rule implies—indeed , affirms—th e goa l t o be establishin g the origina l text , fo r "the overwhelming mas s o f the New Testament textual tradition ... provide s a n assurance of certainty in establishing th e original text." Why? Because among the more than three thousand Greek manuscripts (plus th e Greek lectionaries, early versions, and patristic quotations) "there is still a group of witnesses which preserves

21 J Harol d Greenlee , Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Mic h Eerdmans, 1964 ) 11 , the sam e i n the 2 d e d (Peabody , Mas s Hendrickson , 1995 ) 1 22 Ibi d (1s t e d ) 33, se e als o 12 , (2 d e d ) 24, se e als o 2 Not e that Alexander Souter , The Text and Canon of the New Testament (Duckworth' s Theolog y Senes , Londo n Duckworth , 1913 ) 3 , contains simila r statements , bot h abou t th e goal o f textua l criticis m an d abou t it s superfluit y wer e the autographs t o be discovere d 23 Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (tran s Errol l F Rhodes , 2 d ed , Grand Rapids, Mic h Eerdmans , Leide n Brill , 1989 ) ν 24 Ibi d , 280 [italic s i n original ] 284 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the original form of the text."25 Here, however—m contrast to our example from Greenlee—the Alands' "original" does not consist in the "autographs," rather The competence of New Testament textual criticism is restricted to the state of the New Testament text from the moment it began its literary history through transcription for distribution All events prior to this are beyond its scope 26 The critical phrase here, more literally translated, indicates that text-critical judgments can be made about the New Testament writings only "from the moment when, through copies, they began their literary existence,"27 that is, when they were "published" or were circulated (in some official sense) Anything prior, in their view,

25 Ibid , 291-92, see 69-70 Elsewhere Kurt Aland affirmed that the joint text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament "corresponds, in fact, to the text of the early time" and that "a hundred years after Westcott-Hort, the goal of an edition 'in the original Greek' appears to have been reached" [alluding, of course, to the title of the Westcott-Hort edition The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881)] For the quotations, see, respectively, Kurt Aland, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," in Text and Interpretation Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (ed Ernest Best and Robert McLachlan Wilson, Cambodge Cambodge University Press, 1979) 11, idem, "Der neue 'Standard-Text' in seinem Verhältnis zu den frühen Papyri und Majuskeln," in New Testament Textual Criticism Its Significance for Exegesis Essays in Honour of Bruce M Metzger (ed Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D Fee, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1981)274-75 See also Aland and Aland "any reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition, from the original reading onward, has been preserved in the tradition and needs only to be identified" (Text of the New Testament, 296) By 2000, however, Barbara Aland appears to have drawn back somewhat from these views, she and J Keith Elliott shared a German broadcast on textual criticism, which Elliott reports as follows I was interested to hear her say that the aim of textual criticism was to attain the Ausgangstext, that is, the form of the text to which our extant fund of manuscripts and their variants can ultimately be traced, but she was quick to say that this Ausgangstext was not necessarily the same as the original text of the original authors Elliott, "The New Testament Text in the Second Century A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century," New Testament Textual Research Update 8 [2000] 9-10 Virtually the same language was used in 2004 by Gerd Mink of the Munster Institut fur Neutestamenthche Textforschung, where he employs the English expression, "initial text," for Ausgangstext The initial text corresponds to a hypothetical witness A {'Ausgangstexf) The initial text is not identical with the original, the text of the author Between the autograph and the initial text considerable changes may have taken place which may not have left a single trace in the surviving textual tradition Gerd Mink, "Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition The New Testament Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses," in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken, Amsterdam John Benjamins, 2004) 25 26 Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 297 See Kurt Aland's earlier statement in his "New Testament Textual Researches since Westcott and Hort," in The Bible in Modern Scholarship Papers Read at the 100th Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, December 28-30, 1964 (ed J Philip Hyatt, Nashville, Tenn Abingdon, 1965) 342 See the preceding note, above 27 Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments Einfuhrung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik (Stuttgart Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1982) 298