Possibly... but with hundreds of years of transmission, it is extremely unlikely, which is why textual critics have abandoned the pursuit of an "original" text altogether --- it is beyond our ability to reconstruct given what we know of scribal errors and evidence of alterations in the extant manuscript tradition.Would that form of the text be the possible original text?
Correct... textual criticism is a sub-discipline of historical criticism --- another way of looking at it would be that textual criticism is one of several tools available to the historical critic. In order to understand a particular text in its cultural and historical context (historical criticism), one must first establish what that text is (textual criticism).Then historical and textual criticism are not the same.
That is a large part of it... but even if the text in question was the work of a single author, there is still the lack of manuscript evidence reaching back to the purported time of the "original" which places reconstructing it out of our grasp.Hmmm...is that because of its composite nature?
Yes, there is evidence for this both within the biblical tradition (in addition to the large-scale differences between MT, LXX and SP for a number of books there are the reworkings of Samuel and Kings in Chronicles and portions of early gospels incorporated into later ones in the New Testament) and outside the biblical tradition (the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example).But whoever wrote the story first, why then did people take the original and piecemeal other parts to it when it was strictly forbidden? Deut 4:2 Was it a common practice in antiquity of add and redact sacred books?