In my previous post I pointed out that scribes sometimes changed the manuscripts of the New Testament in order to make them more theologically “orthodox,” that is, more in line with theological views of (most of) the scribes who were copying the texts in the second and third centuries. Five points I would like to emphasize about that phenomenon (if you want a fuller analysis, this is the topic of my study, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament).
- It would be a very big mistake to think that this was the main reason scribes changed their texts (as I’ve said my entire life, even if many people haven’t noticed!)
- These changes were never done consistently or throughly, at least in any of our surviving manuscripts, and that suggests it was an ad hoc affair, happening now and then as a scribe decided to modify a passage. So far as we can tell it was never done on orders from on high. That is, we don’t know of a bishop or other church leader requesting something like a cleansing / rewriting of the text.
- The changes could come in two major forms: sometimes a text was changed because it could in theory (or was in practice!) used to argue a “false” theological view, and the change would help circumvent that “mis”reading; and sometimes a text was changed by adding a theological view to it that was otherwise lacking.
- When I say these changes were “intentional” I’m using the term cautiously. Some of these changes almost certainly had to be made on purpose (they often couldn’t simply be slips of the pen). But since we are obviously not able to read the minds of unknown scribes from many centuries ago, it is impossible to say “This is DEFINITELY why he changed the text.” The changes I’m referring to DO affect the theology of the text in an orthodox way, but inferring intention is … inference! That’s always the case when it comes to discerning intention, of course. I can right now be inferring why you will be reading this post and you can be inferring why I’m writing it, and we both have a reasonably good chance of being right. But there’s no way to know. What we can know with greater certainty is that the changes I’m referring to certainly functioned to make the text more orthodox, and given the number of such changes we find in a period where the controversies over correct theology were HOT, to say the least, it’s not unreasonable to suspect the polemically-charged context of the scribes affected their polemically-useful textual changes.
- What I’m calling “intentional” changes of the text became less and less frequent in the fourth and later centuries, as scribes came to be better trained and the text come to be seen as more inviolable. But as it turns out, we have very good reasons for thinking that most of the changes of the NT text occurred in the 2nd – 3rd centuries, even when our only surviving *evidence* of them comes to us from later manuscripts.
With all that said, I can move to the topic of this thread, the related question of whether scribes were also affected not only by the raging debates concerning theology at the time, but also by the increasing opposition to Judaism. The evidence in this case is nowhere near as abundant, but I think the answer is nonetheless a clear yes.
Here’s the overview of the matter I give in my article “The Text as Window,” referenced in my previous two posts (and, as you’ll see, it is written for scholars). After this I will do a post on one of the most intriguing examples.
******************************
- Jewish-Christian Relations and the Rise of Christian Anti-Judaism
One particularly fruitful area of research since the 1940s has been the study of early Jewish-Christian relations and the rise of Christian anti-Judaism. Rooted in the solid researches of Jules Isaac and Marcel Simon, and motivated in no small measure by the provocative thesis of Rosemary Ruether – that Christianity has by its very nature always been anti-Jewish – scholars of both the NT and later Christianity have produced a voluminous outpouring of literature that discusses the relation of Christianity to its Jewish matrix.[i]
How did the conflicts with Judaism that are evident throughout the first three Christian centuries affect scribes who reproduced the texts of Scripture? The question has regrettably not received the extended study it deserves. To be sure, even before World War II scholars had observed that some MSS preserve textual variants that are related to the conflicts. Particularly worthy of mention are Heinrich Joseph Vogels and J. Rendell Harris, both of whom argued that the anti-Judaic tendencies of Tatian’s Diatessaron had influenced several of the surviving witnesses.[ii] For instance, the Curetonian Syriac modifies the announcement that Jesus will save “his people” from their sins (Matt 1:21) to say that he will save “the world.” So too, some Syriac and Latin witnesses of the Fourth Gospel change Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman in John 4:22 to indicate that salvation comes “from Judea” rather than “from the Jews.” Among the most intriguing of the nearly two dozen examples that these (and other) scholars have discussed is the omission in some MSS of Jesus’ prayer from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34) – an omission that makes particularly good sense if Jesus is understood to be asking God to forgive the Jews responsible for his crucifixion.[iii]
As already mentioned, the most significant study of anti-Jewish influences on the text of the NT has been Epp’s evaluation of Codex Bezae in Acts. Following earlier suggestions that the Western tradition may preserve an “anti-Judaic” bias, Epp made a compelling case that many of the Bezan variants in Acts stand over against non-Christian Judaism.[iv] Even though Epp did not pursue the question of Sitz im Leben for this kind of scribal activity [that is, the historical context that led to the changes], its social context in early Christian polemics against the Jews is nonetheless manifest. Future studies could profitably explore in greater detail the significance of this polemical milieu for the textual tradition of the NT.[v]
******************************
[i] The literature is too extensive to detail here. For bibliography and informed discussion see John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983) 11-34; and more briefly, idem, “Judaism as Seen by Outsiders,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg; Philadelphia: Fortress; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 99-116. The foundational works include Jules Isaac, Jesus and Israel (trans. Sally Gran; ed. Claire Hachet Bishop; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971; French original, 1948); Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135-425) (trans. H. McKeating; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; French original, 1964); and Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots ofAnti-Semitism (New York: Seabury, 1974).
[ii] Vogels, Handbuch der Textkritik des Neuen Testaments (2d ed.; Bonn: Hanstein, 1955; 1st ed., 1923) 178; Harris, “Was the Diatesseron Anti-Judaic?”
[iii] For recent discussion and bibliography, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV) (AB 28A; Garden City, NY. Doubleday, 1985) 1503-4.
[iv] For his predecessors, see Epp, Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae, 21-26; in particular, one might mention the study of Menoud, “Western Text.”
[v] On the positive effects of Judaism on the MS tradition of the NT (seen, e.g., in the predisposition among early Christians to dispose of texts rather than destroy them), see Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (Schweich Lectures 1977; London: Oxford University Press, 1979).
Prof. Ehrman,
Can we eliminate anti-semitism in the world? Difficult. I learned at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in New Orleans that the Jews killed Jesus and that we shall remember this generation upon generation. Wasn’t this the root cause of the Nazi creation of the Holocaust? The phrase, Jews killed Jesus, is still taught today; sometimes whispered if considered not a nice thing to say. What if no one killed Jesus? Then no one to blame. According to historical accounts, crucifixions can cause death in hours or days. What if Joseph of Arimathea offered a small gift to Roman soldiers to claim the body before that time of death. Then clearly the many witnesses noted in oral recollections of the Gospels of seeing, hearing, and touching a living Jesus should be accepted. And even the eventual creator of Christianity, Paul, saw and talked to and obeyed a convincing and living Jesus on the road to Damascus. I would appreciate your reviewing my email sent to you today.
Leo Surla, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC
I’d say things are not looking good right now for stamping out anti-Semitism; lots of insularity and fear/hatred of “the Other” going on all around us. As to the crucifixion narrative, I’ve always thought it was very peculiar for Christians to become anti-Jewish because “the Jews killed Jesus.” Uh, well, to begin with it was “the Romans” who killed Jesus. So why didn’t Christianity become vehemently anti-Italian? (!)
“Father,forgive them,for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34) –an omission that makes particularly good sense if Jesus is understood to be asking God to forgive the Jews responsible for his crucifixion.[iii]”
I always thought Luke 24:34 was intended for the Romans,perhaps no further than those hapless soldiers actually torturing and crucifying him.This would also serve as proof that the Romans were to be exonerated,with accountability passing by default to the Jews.A win-win.Romans are exonerated,as committing just a
“technical” crime,whilst Jews are blamed for diabolical deicide.
I would claim that Luke 24:34 could not be intended for the Jews. The Jews were not under the “for they don’t know what their do” explanation.The (falsely) incriminated Jews knew exactly what they were doing.This was the accusation against them.It is the Romans,according to Christian bias, who had been unwittingly led into this crime.
Moreover, if Jesus intended the Jews to be forgiven- not a simple matter,as a need to forgive the Jews imply their tacit culpability-,who could presume the authority to tamper with a request so much in keeping with Jesus’ philosophy? The Jews,as the enemy,were to be forgiven. The tampering was heretic in itself.
Or could this have been the misunderstanding of just one lone scribe?
Right, for a long time I thought so too. But it turns out that in early Christianity, when the text was changed, the verse was almost always interpreted as referring to the Jews. And when you read the boook of Acts, written by the same author, the apostles repeatedly tell specifically the Jews that “you killed Jesus” but you did it in ignorance.
It’s my understanding that “Jews” is a very modern concept, while the Greek New Testament speaks of Yehudians/ Judeans.
Revelation 3:9
https://biblehub.com/revelation/3-9.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/3-9.htm
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews [no, Yehudians/ Judeans: 2453 Ioudaious Ἰουδαίους] though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”
I think the problem is that the word is used for those who follow Jewish customs, culture, religion who have never been in Judea, off in the diaspora.
Another point in favor of the Romans needing forgiveness,rather than the Jews, is that Luke 24:34 is written in the present tense.The Jews had been instigators,judges, political strategists and general unbelievers,but now, at the Crucifixion, “as an active party,they were a thing of the past.As was Pilate.
Those acting in ignorance of the magnitude of the event were those Romans standing there,who were, in fact, innocent,as they had to follow orders (a difficult expression after the Holocaust). One of them (in Matthew)even says “Truly this was the Son of God”.
In Jesus’ world everyone was entitled to forgiveness and everyone was obligated to forgive,whatever the trespasses or crimes.
Which raises an additional point: was a reason necessary in order to forgive (“for they don’t know what they do”)? If the Romans present at the Crucifixion had known “what they were doing”,as many soldiers in wars did, were they *not* to be forgiven,then?
Was forgiveness suddenly contingent, then?Or is it that,as God was the one being asked to forgive,God might *not* forgive, even as humans are exhorted to do so?
Is Jesus here pleading to God as Moses did, advocating for a particular people?
I know I went over the textual specific issue, but this Luke passage is just so huge.
Yup, forgiveness, and prayers for forgiveness, are both deeply convoluted. Why would someone need to ask God to forgive someone else? Why wouldn’t he just know it was the right thing to do? He is God, after all….
Dr. Ehrman, I watched your excellent interview of Dr. Goodacre where you mentioned logion 7: “Blessed is the lion that the person eats so that the lion becomes human. And cursed is the person that the lion eats, and the lion will become human.” And I thought of the Talmud Berakhot 3:20, which says “Woe to the man whom an arvad (lizard?) bites. And woe to the avrad that has bitten Rabbi Ben Dosa!”
Could there be a connection? Both are contrasted blessings or curses on an animal biting or being bitten by a person. Was this a general format for witty aphorisms that could give a clue about its meaning in Thomas?
I would love to know! The problem, of course, is taht texts written centuries apart in different locations and different languages by people of different cultural heritage and religoius convictions are hard to use as guides to what one another might have meant. But maybe it was widely proverbial? I don’t think I’ve ever looked into it or seen any discussion of it. But that’s for the rerefence — it really is a striking parallel.
What are MS and MSS?
Sorry. Nerd-speak. MS = Manuscript and MSS = Manuscripts. (“Manuscript” literally means “hand-written copy,” so any copy of a text before the printing press) (Or after, if it’s hand written!)
One of the synoptics has the Jews choose a “notable/remarkable prisoner” to be released over Jesus and the other two synoptics have them choose an “insurrectionist who had been involved in murder” over him.
Shouldn’t this be understand as a later edit by gospel authors in an increasingly anti-Jewish church?
Could be. Or could be a change made for other reasons, one way or the other (e.g., wanting associate or dissociate Jesus with a comparable figure who wsa a violent insurrectionist) Later writers did not necessarily all edit things the same way or in the same direction. (You may be interested in reading E. P. Sanders’ first book, on the editing practices in the Synoptics)
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I am a huge fan of your work, and I greatly respect your opinion. I created a new argument for Christianity and was wondering if could look at it and give me feedback, and let me know if it has any merit. Thank you so much!
Here’s the link: https://docdro.id/JS1RxnA
I’d be happy to respond if you’ll summarize it for all of us.
Ok thanks, the only thing though is that I’m not sure I could since it is a 100 facts about Christianity and the word limit is only 200. But I’ll try:
How is it possible that 40+ authors independently of each other, around the world, over thousands of years, wrote a cohesive story about historical events tied to the Israelites, which made them look terrible, and featured known leaders, that tied together to create a picture of a Being with “one voice” throughout the Bible, and each person only had one chance to write this story with its predictions and public miracles because if they were wrong, the work of past authors writing this same salvation story hundreds of years ago would be discarded, that has predicted hundreds of events without failing, and Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and completed the story that was hundreds of years in the making perfectly, claimed to be God, having people see him resurrected, eclipse and earthquake occured at his death, become the most famous person ever, with billions of people claiming that they have the Holy Spirit in them from this person, and seeing the same afterlife as the Bible in NDEs?
I imagine that would be technically possible. But the very big problem what scholars have wrestled with for over 300 years is precisely that this is what we do NOT have with the Bible. If it were only one voice, there would be no scholarship needed. But there are many, many voices, with different perspetives, different accounts of the events and speeches, contradictions, discrepancies, errors, different religoius and theological views about God, Christ, salvation, you name it,tand on and on.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant one portrayal of God throughout the Bible such as his authority, mission, plan, promised, etc. How could all these people develop a “fake character” like God who has consistent qualities and what would be the point of this, especially with stories that make all the humans looks bad? And even if you could argue there isn’t one picture of God, then it wouldn’t be possible for Christians to show that there is one God, but they do with.
I don’t think there is a consistent portrayal of God and his qualities throughout the Bible. The way he is portrayed in Genesis is very different from how he is portrayed in Joshua, and both are very different from Job; his portrayal in Proverbs is very different from Amos; his portrayal in the teachings of Jesus very different from his portrayal in the Apocalypse of John. Etc. etc.
“one portrayal of God throughout the Bible”
There isn’t such. The Bible has progressive revelation about the nature of God, culminating in God as portrayed by Jesus.
Moses represents the law, and Elijah the prophets, while Jesus trumps both:
Luke 9 (NIV)
https://www.biblehub.com/niv/luke/9.htm
33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him,
“Master, it is good for us to be here.
Let us put up three shelters—
one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
(He did not know what he was saying.)
34 While he was speaking,
a cloud appeared and covered them,
and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.
35 A voice came from the cloud, saying,
“This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”
The 2nd half of
_Immortality: The Drew Lecture: Delivered October 11, 1912_ by Robert Henry Charles (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 38pp.
https://archive.org/details/immortalitydrew00chargoog/page/n6
nicely outlines the Bible’s progressive revelation on the nature of God.
An extract is at
https://tentmaker.org/forum/judgement-and-punishment/r-h-charles-bring-eschatology-into-harmony-w-xtian-theology-of-god/
“So far as we can tell it was *never* done on orders from on high. That is, we don’t know of a bishop or other church leader requesting something like a cleansing/rewriting of the text.”
That is a helpful observation, Bart; but perhaps should be qualifed as “there is no indication of any variant *originating* with a church leader requesting a cleansing/rewriting of the text”?
There is at least one clear instance of church leaders requesting (indeed ordering) a text to be written in one form, rather than another; where two variant readings were both already in wide circulation. Specifically the longer form of Matthew 27:49; “And someone else, taking a spear, pierced his side and there came out water and blood”.
Serverus of Antioch – Patriach of Alexandria 512-518 – wrote an extensive attack on the longer reading on both text-critical and theological grounds; and sought to suppress it. And indeed, in a substantial proportion of the surviving manuscripts that preserve the longer reading, it has clearly been struck out.
Though the longer reading still survived in places beyond the reach of central authorities – particularly Ireland and Ethiopia – as the standard text.
Thanks. Very interesting. Yes, I was referring to changes that occurred on high because church leaders gave instructions to scribes to purify their texts (no evidence of that — especially in the second and third cneuturies when virtually all our changes were made). And of course Matt. 27:49 was changed long before the days of Severus, in both directions; both forms of the text almost certainly go back to the second century but, in any event, have hard ms support for them by the end of the fourth. The longer text, of course, is a harmonization to John 19:34. The shorter reading is almost certainly original, and it would be iteresting to see if there’s any evidence that the later “striking outs” were driven by Severus’s polemic, a general polemic, or (more likely I should think, givne that John 19:34 itself didn’t experience this fate) the widespread knowledge among scribes that the oldest mss didn’t have the text.
Perhaps Bart, though whether scribes of the fifth and sixth centuries could distinguish older from later manuscipts is an interesting point; Severus appealed to the copy of the Gospel of Matthew supposedly found in the tomb of Barnabas on Cyprus and presented to the Emperor Zeno around 480 CE (which witnessed the shorter reading), but that was unlikely to have been as old as he claimed.
But I do not think the longer reading can credibly be claimed as a harmonization to John 19:34:
– much of the wording is different; and those words that are common are not in the same order (‘water and blood’ vs ‘blood and water’),
– the two readings are directly contradictory; the text in Matthew setting the piercing before Jesus’s death; that in John emphatically setting it afterwards,
– the reading in John is apparently secondary, as is shown by the appeal to an eyewitness in verse 35, by implication refuting a previous untrustworthy account.
Whether John’s ‘untrustworthy’ account could be assumed to be Matthew is not demonstrated though; more likely John is reacting to a ‘floating’ piercing tradition that also served as source for Matthew (or his early copyist).
Did the Romans crucify the Jesus who survived to meet 17 separate witnesses as alive and physical (not spiritual) according to the Gospels. Of course Pilate authorized that he be nailed to the tree. And the early Bishops of Rome thought it would be inconvenient for Rome to be blamed. In the 1st and 2nd Centuries they weren’t dumb. They chose to blame the Jews, the phrase Jews killed Jesus still rings in my head as I heard it at St. Pauls Lutheran School in New Orleans. I assume it rings in other heads around the world. What if Jesus didn’t die at the hands of Romans and Jews and was rescued by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, his assistant? That possibility could make some people think. And maybe Pope Francis would state, as did John 23rd, that Jews had nothing to do with crucifying Jesus. In todays internet world, that statement would reach at least 1 billion Christians. Wouldn’t that make some small difference to countering anti-semitism?