Greg Lanier: Locating the Inspired ‘Original’ Amid Textual Complexity

While tracing the minutiae of these passages as far as possible was interesting in its own right, I eventually realized that the project served as a well-contained case study that surfaces and helps crystallize a bigger-picture issue of significance in the study of the textual tradition of Scripture. Namely, what does it mean to speak of an authorial/original/initial form of a Scriptural writing when faced with tremendous complexity in the actual data itself?

In conversations with various OT and NT peers—particularly those who have a “high” doctrine of Scripture (of the American or British varieties)—I’ve found that this topic has struck a chord, as others have been thinking on it as well.

Actual photo from John Meade’s Hebrew class

In the article I mainly articulate various aspects of this question (and others) but do not offer much by way of solutions, chiefly because to do so would require substantially more space than is possible in an (already long) article. Gurry and Meade invited me to write up something briefly here so that, if nothing else, it will spark more discussion.

Many readers of ETC likely hold to the divine origins of the writings of both the OT and NT. Moreover, most would agree that we can, in general, confidently reconstruct the textual form of something that goes far back (though the OT and NT are obviously quite different in this regard).

But we all know from working with the text closely that there is a lot of complexity when you peel back the layers of data. This is true for the NT, but it is even more acute for the OT. (That is why this case study was so fascinating: it involved both—and their interaction—in a significant way).

The article concludes:

This study attempts to use a concrete example to illumine how the complexity of the data on the OT and NT sides touches each [aspect of one’s doctrine of Scripture]. A well-argued doctrine of Scripture needs to be able to articulate how we should understand the wording deemed “inspired” in light of the contemporary challenges posed to the very idea of an “original”/“autographical” form; the relationship between the authorial form and extant diverse textual forms (and recensions/editions?), especially on the OT side; and the role of editing/compiling as well as the downstream use of upstream sources both within and between the Testaments.

Let me try to be more concrete in stating what I mean, along with questions that readers are invited to discuss.

• Ausgangstext: I find it fascinating that scholars working on critical editions of the HB and the NT have been grappling with the same issues, often unaware of each other (Gurry has noticed this as well). For instance, the editors of the Hebrew Bible: Critical Edition (formerly Oxford Hebrew Bible) are speaking in terms of “initial” or earliest-reconstructible text, just as those associated with the ECM have gravitated towards the Ausgangstext as the goal, rather than “original.” I also know that many folks, at least on the GNT side, have registered qualms about the burgeoning agnosticism about our ability to make the inductive leap from Ausgangstext to “original”/“authorial.” How do these two parallel movements relate to one another? What presuppositions do they share about the recoverability of some earlier form that is closer to the point of origin? How do such shifts in understanding impact a Protestant doctrine of Scripture? What would it take to articulate a robust, comprehensive engagement with the issues raised?
• Text-form: On the OT side, specialists are well-aware of key instances in which the known textual forms vary to such a degree that simple answers do not always work; e.g., the longer/shorter forms of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and portions of 1 Samuel; the multiple forms of Daniel (and related literature); the double-texts of Judges; the fluidity seen for Job and Proverbs (particularly between the MT and Greek forms); the complexity seen in the Psalter (MT vs. DSS, and to a lesser degree Greek); and so on. Similar examples occur in the NT, though they’re less pronounced: longer/shorter Acts; fluidity in the ending of Romans; LE(s) of Mark; PA; etc. Which of these is “original” (where most doctrines of Scripture place their emphasis)—and what would the answer to that question look like? No doubt scholars have been working on some of these issues piecemeal (e.g., Peter Gentry on Proverbs). But my impression is that, on the whole, most of the work done by those broadly identifying with a “high” doctrine of Scripture is either narrowly confined to this or that textual variant, or is not altogether conversant with the complexity (e.g., the 2016 Enduring Authority volume almost completely ignored these issues, despite its length). For some, especially those outside the broadly evangelical world, the answer is found in resigning ourselves to a plurality of initial text-forms. But is there an alternative? What would it take to articulate a comprehensive, integrated solution to these questions? Is there a macro-theory that would accommodate the data in a compelling way, and what are the steps to getting there?
• Progressivity/diversity and authority: No doubt within the OT guild, theories abound in terms of layers of progressive editorial work on the text. Muted forms of this are found in NT work as well (Synoptics; 2 Corinthians; ending of John; etc.). TC sometimes plays a role in these discussions; sometimes not. Either way, the interesting thing surfaced by this Decalogue case study is the diversity of text-forms for the same passage that the NT authors treated as authoritative. This is not “new” news, of course; scholars working on OT-in-NT are acutely aware of the complexities one finds in tracing what text-form of an OT passage is adopted by a NT author. But even as you go downstream into the textual tradition, you see this continuing among the scribes, who through secondary assimilation or some other phenomena will differ from one another in which text-form they adopt. And in all such cases, that reading is apparently privileged as “original” even though others exist. How should this shape the way we think about the intersection of “original/authorial/initial” and textual authority (given that most variations of a “high” doctrine of Scripture only treat as authoritative the form deemed to be given by God)? 

I’m not at all trying to be alarmist, nor do I want to come across as suggesting that everything is up in the air. However, I do think these are important and tremendously complex issues, involving (at a minimum) expertise in HB TC, LXX TC, textual formation/redaction/etc. for much of the OT, and NT TC (not to mention canon and other topics). I’m hoping personally to contribute to their resolution in some way. But it’s probably not something that any single scholar can “solve.”

So, I turn the question to you: what needs to be done? I would love to hear your thoughts.