Scribes and Their Remains

Craig A. Evans, Jeremiah J. Johnston

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780567693457
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Scribes and Their Remains begins with an introductory essay by Stanley Porter which addresses the principal theme of the book: the text as artifact. The rest of the volume is then split into two major sections. In the first, five studies appear on the theme of 'Scribes, Letters, and Literacy.' In the first of these Craig A. Evans offers a lengthy piece that argues that the archaeological, artifactual, and historical evidence suggests that New Testament autographs and first copies may well have remained in circulation for one century or more, having the effect of stabilizing the text. Other pieces in the section address literacy, orality and paleography of early Christian papyri. In the second section there are five pieces on 'Writing, Reading, and Abbreviating Christian Scripture.' These range across numerous topics, including an examination of the stauros (cross) as a nomen sacrum.

1

TEXT AS ARTIFACT: AN INTRODUCTION

Stanley E. Porter

The notion of text has been around for a considerable amount of time, at least as far back as the ancient Greeks and probably even earlier.¹ As a result, texts are frequently referred to in both common and intellectual parlance, and appear to be the essential elements of many, if not most, academic disciplines so as to invite little to no comment. In some ways, this volume is a work that seems to assume a common understanding of the notion of text, such that most of the articles will assume our familiarity with not only such a concept but such an entity. On the face of it, a text seems like a relatively stable notion, but nothing could be further from the truth. Once one begins to think about text and how to define it, the difficulties seem to multiply. This has not always been the case but has become a recent issue of greater significance.² For example, the philosopher Jorge J. E. Gracia offers the following sentences to illustrate the problem of definition of text:

1. The text we shall discuss today is a novel.

2. Give me the text that is in front of you.

3. Do not throw away the text.

4. That text is ungrammatical.

5. The text we have been discussing is logically incoherent.³

As he points out, the word text is being used in a number of different ways within just these five sentences—many more of which sentences could be suggested to further illustrate the problem (e.g. Our class is going to study Matthew’s Gospel as an oral text). To illustrate some of the differing conceptions, the first definition probably conforms to the definition that most people have in mind when they use the word text. This text is written and has literary pretentions attached to it, quite possibly in distinction from other types of written literary texts, such as poems, plays, and the like. The literary understanding of text has been a widespread definition of text and perhaps the place where most discussion of texts occurs and hence has come to dominate the notion of text. The problem with such a definition is that it masks more than it hides, as it seems to assume a static object that can be examined and interpreted, and perhaps even manipulated, without reference to any other factors, whether individual or communal. The second and third sentences, according to Gracia, convey the notion that text is a physical object, one with distinct physical boundaries and characteristics, and that it can be treated as any other physical object can be treated—passed around between people and even thrown away if it is judged no longer useful. This characterization of text is probably most closely associated with a very narrow definition of text as artifact—although as we shall see below, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the notions either of text or of artifact. The fourth sentence characterizes text as a linguistic entity. In other words, without reference to whether it is written or otherwise and whether it is part or whole, this usage conveys the idea that text is linguistically analyzable in relationship to something else, presumably something that is thought or said to be grammatical. This definition of text as linguistic item also reflects a relatively common use of the word text, even if not as frequent as the one of text as literary entity. However, the characterization of text according to its grammaticality opens up some perspectives on the definition, because the text is seen as an instance of a language system, which is outside of or larger than (the ways of characterizing it may vary) the instance itself, according to which it can be evaluated. The fifth and final definition of text implies that text is a philosophical notion, or at least one that conforms or not to a viewpoint that one might have of various ideas or concepts, that they can be coherent or not, according to some kind of external (here logical) standard. Like the fourth sentence, this definition also opens up the possibilities, even if only slightly, regarding the notion of text. However, rather than appealing to a linguistic system that might produce such a sentence, this sentence appeals to a philosophical or even ontological framework of understanding.⁴

As I stated above, a few moments of thinking will reveal that there are many other ways of thinking about the notion of text. In fact, even though the Greeks may have been some of the earliest to think about text, consideration of what constitutes text has continued to the present, and in fact is in many ways a very current topic. It may at first glance seem unusual to introduce a volume such as this with an introduction of this sort, but I think that noting something about the wider notion of text helps us better to understand how each of the contributions here is a contribution not just to a particular issue related to texts but to a wider notion of what constitutes a text. This volume—or should I say, text—for which I am writing this introduction falls within the general area of biblical studies, but this is only one of many disciplines for which texts have played an important role. There are numerous intellectual and academic traditions for which the text is central and that have consequently come to view text in particular ways. These include the fields of text-criticism, philology, literature, linguistics, phenomenology, and philosophy, among no doubt others in what has come to be identified with the modernist tradition.⁵ There are a number of areas of overlap among how these various traditions reflect upon text, but each also makes a distinct contribution by treating text in slightly different ways.

Texts in textual criticism place high emphasis upon an actual, physical text, as textual criticism consists in comparing not just texts, but specific wordings of texts for their similarities and differences.⁶ Texts are not just bounded entities but they are recognizably finite and even flawed, and as a result suitable for comparison at the most minute levels for their convergences and divergences. Textual criticism, although it implies a perhaps unachievable text (the original or Urtext), operates on a horizontal level of seeking an elusive original text, but the comparison is between one text and another (even if the notion of original text is idealized in many ways). At most, a given text is a representation, even if flawed, of the original text. This text-critical perspective played a huge role in the notion of textual studies in the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century especially in the study of ancient texts, including the Bible.

The philological text has similarities with the text-critical one, because traditional philology is concerned with establishing texts for study and appreciation.⁷ The difference is that a philological text, while still an actual, physical text, is an even more narrowly defined text than a text-critical one, even if philology may make use of textual criticism. The text of philology is an instance of the preserved and best representatives of the literature of those who produced such texts, studied for artistic or literary merit, appreciation of language, use of language, and often generic exemplification. In a limited way, there is appeal to the culture that produced the text, but the notion of culture is not specifically defined but represented by the text. Much traditional biblical study has placed the philological text at the center of its discussion. The nineteenth- and early twentieth-century commentary tradition represents the philological text under close scrutiny.

The literary text is related to the philological text.⁸ The literary text is in some respects the descendant of the philological text in its actual, physical representation of various literary works through the ages, not just confined to the world of philology (often associated with study of the ancients). The literary text has traditionally been seen as the direct product of the biography of the author, and having features that characterize literature, such as structure, form, and content. In more recent times, the literary text has focused upon the text itself without primary concern for author or audience. The literary text is not externally referential but self-referential, being equated with the thing in itself without regard for authorial intention or audience response. The literary text is often equated with the North American New Criticism literary movement, in which the image of the “well-wrought urn” is seen as metaphorically capturing the nature of text.⁹ The literary text has had a more recent influence upon biblical studies, especially with the advent of literary studies and now narrative criticism of the Bible. The shift from a philological to a literary text in biblical studies is noteworthy and noticeable, even if not always understandable when many language-related issues remain unresolved.

The linguistic text is related to both the philological and literary text in its association with language, but with the distinguishing characteristic that a linguistic text is an instance of another entity, a linguistic code (apart from those non-code theories of language).¹⁰ Whereas for the text-critical, philological, and literary text the text itself takes priority, for the linguistic text not the text but the linguistic code is the focus of attention. The text itself is merely an instance, an example, that points to the linguistic code that produced the text. There exist a variety of ways that one may relate the code to the text, such as generatively, structurally, functionally, or stratificationally, among others, with the most important of these in discussion of text being the structural conception of text. The linguistic text has made some inroads into examination of the biblical text, but remains an alternative approach to the philological and especially literary text.

The phenomenological text is both a philosophical and literary characterization of text.¹¹ The philosophical connections to phenomenology are a concern for the thing itself, with emphasis upon the relationship of the one who experiences the phenomenon of the text. The literary connections are to various literary movements, such as Russian formalism (itself related to phenomenology), Prague structuralism, and the Anglo-focused New Criticism, and result in text as phenomenon to be experienced and reacted to by textual participants. The focus is upon the phenomenon of the text with the participant called to respond to the text as seen diachronically in the history of its reception or synchronically in the response of the reader who is forced by the text to respond by completing it or filling in its spaces. The phenomenological text, because of its relationship to the literary text, has had influence upon biblical studies, especially as this is seen in narrative criticism, which continues to be practiced even within the scope of other types of criticism.

The ontological text is the most philosophical view of text, and it is associated with a range of views of the text as being a representation in some form of being, that is with either epistemological or metaphysical properties or characteristics.¹² This being may be conceived of in various ways, depending upon the particular philosophical view propounded. In any case, text is seen as representative of a philosophical notion, whether it is a representational or ideational reality that is reflected in text. Related to this is the notion that text is to be coherent or logical in its structure, with its representation being faithful to whatever the philosophical notion might be. The ontological text has had a surprising resilience and continued presence in biblical studies by way of its forming the presupposition of varying types of biblical theology. Biblical theology often insinuates a philosophical viewpoint regarding the nature of text.

There are no doubt other ways that text has been conceived, but the above convey at least some major characterizations made through the centuries and illustrate how it has been used within various disciplines. This includes biblical studies where texts have mostly been seen as literary, though sometimes as linguistic. Such a notion of text focuses upon text as entity, with bounded and finite parameters, usually physical representation, mostly with emphasis upon the text as opposed to any other reality, and there is an overriding sense of text being a static, fixed, and stable (and at least correctable) item. This is the notion of text that has come to be associated with text as artifact, and it has proved to be useful for a number of different academic and intellectual disciplines. These are primarily within literary and related studies (such as biblical studies), where it has probably had its greatest continuing life and influence, but also within a range of other disciplines.

That is, such was the case up to around the 1970s, when the notion of text underwent a major and radical reconceptualization on the basis of how language was reconceptualized.¹³ John Mowitt summarizes some of these changes in language-perception, including the deinstrumentalization of language so that language is no longer seen as an instrument for the expression of authorial intent but part of the “cultural formation where human beings are subjected to language’s codes and modes of operation.”¹⁴ Any idea of language being transcendental is eliminated and emphasis placed on its being actualized.¹⁵ The result for both text and language was to make it impossible to view text in the same way since. This reconceptualization was part of a general intellectual foment that transpired within many if not most intellectual disciplines, especially those that had structuralist underpinnings, in which many of the foundational assumptions and orientations of such disciplines—such as the notion of stable texts, something that was deeply engrained in most of these disciplines mentioned above up to this point—underwent a radical revaluation.¹⁶ The basic transformation that occurred involved at least the following differences: between the traditional notion of text as product and the notion of text as process and the emphasis upon its productivity,¹⁷ between text and textuality as the process by which various texts and other phenomena are interwoven into a tapestry whose result is intertextuality, between meaning as simplex and univocal to its being (to use the language of Bakhtin) dialogical and heteroglossic,¹⁸ and between stability in interpretation and fluidity and even infini...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introducing Scribes and Their Remains
• 1 Text as Artifact: An Introduction
• Part I Scribes, Letters, and Literacy
• Part II Writing, Reading, and Abbreviating Christian Scripture
• Index of References
• Index of Authors