In my overview of the responses to my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture in the Afterword I wrote of the 2nd edition, I began to address some major questions. In the book I argued that scribes of the New Testament intentionally changed the text in places in order to make it more orthodox in its theology or to circumvent its use by “heretics” who had other views. That raises a question: are scribes who change the text to make it say something different actually *authors* instead of mere copyists? Here’s how I discuss the issue at the beginning of my Afterword.
************************
Have you looked at Candida Moss’s latest book, God’s Ghostwriters ? She argues that (almost) none of the NT was written by the named authors but by the scribes they dictated to. Further, that these scribes were all enslaved or had once been enslaved, and that they slipped “subversive” anti-slavery material into the texts.
She may be on to something, but I think she overstates her case and let her own agenda get in the way, particularly when it comes to assessing the role of women (Rahab, Tamar – Judah’s daughter-in-law – and Ruth). She also seems to occasionally mix up the letters Paul really wrote and the ones he almost certainly didn’t. One part that really troubled me was her strong implication that crucifixion was reserved for slaves and traitors (page 100), and that Jesus suffered horribly on the cross – she didn’t even try to explain Luke’s Jesus dying stoically.
Yes, I interviewed her on my podcast about it. And yes, I think she very much overstated her case.
If I were to copy the Gettysburg Address, I would change “Four score and seven years ago” to eighty seven years ago because I think four score sounds too fancy.
Question and comment from “When Does Life Begin” Lectures–I wish I could have watched it live.
Amazing set of lectures.
Is there any indication that the earliest texts condemning abortions were driven by communities trying to figure out what to do now that Jesus did not return–I’ve always been struck by Paul’s statements about marriage and thought about how much easier it would be to be celibate if Jesus is coming back in your lifetime, thus meaning you don’t need to procreate or satisfy sexual urges. That’s not exactly my question, though–my question is more is there any indication of early Christians wanting to GROW the Christian community through increased numbers of children being born, thus discouraging/outlawing abortion. Something similar has been argued for the 19th century with the industrial revolution but also with the loss of life after the US Civil War.
Thank you for your discussion of how common it is to accuse marginalized groups of attacking/killing babies. The parallels between that and today’s rhetoric around keeping trans people out of bathrooms “to protect our women and children” demonstrates how that continues today, in the face of statistics and studies that show that that argument is specious.
Thanks. It’s an interesting thought, but no, there aren’t any hints of that in our texts. There point is always “So we are more moral than anyone else.” It’s also much discussed among scholars whether htese texts are *descriptive* of realty at all, or idealizingly prescriptive.disabledupes{1a8d9be837f3db24e2dc19065f5fa80e}disabledupes
As always, thank you for the time you take to reply to your members’ posts. I thought that might be the case–and I am fascinated by descriptive v prescriptive arguments around such issues. I’m teaching a Masters of Social Work course on reproductive justice right now and have pointed my students to your course if they want to know more about what the Bible says.
Yup! Very important. Saying “we don’t commit adultery” for example may be *meant* as descriptive, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurately descriptive and it is certainly presecriptive as well.
Bart, why are you still assuming that the deliberate alterations of the text were made by copyists (rather than the owners of the manuscripts, for example)? Stop it! You need to listen to those who are active in the field, including your former students. I have corrected you on this before.
Which of my former students thinks that deliberate alterations were not made by copyists? And what do you mean by the owners of the mss? Do you mean someone had a completed manuscript in their possession and went in with pen and eraser and started changing it at will? If that’s what you mean, remind me what evidence you have that that ever happened, let along happened in hundreds of thousands of places?
You wrote, “Which or my former students ….”. Email Stephen Carlson and Ian Mills. Read Schmid Ulrich 2011 ‘Conceptualizing “Scribal” Performances: Reader’s Notes’, in Wachtel K., Holmes M. (eds), The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Atlanta: SBL): 49–64.
Maybe you better explain what you mean that copyists were not the ones who made deliberate alterations. Ulrich, and I, of course, disagree on whether it’s appropriate ever to call a copyists/scxribe an “editor” or even an “author,” but even he agrees scribes deliberately changed the text on occasion. And I’d be flat-out amazed if Ian or Stephen ever claims copyists never made deliberate alterations. I’d bet a very fine bottle of wine on it. But it may depend on precisely what it is you’re claiming.
In your work on orthodox corruption, did you explore whether scribes defended themselves against texts such as Matt 23:29 (Woe to you, scribes …)? If scribes were at liberty to make changes, wouldn’t we expect widespread corruption in such verses?
Anyway, please email Stephen Carlson, and share his reply.
I don’t think Christian copyists thought they were the kinds of scribes Jesus was referring to.
You wrote: “I don’t think Christian copyists thought they were the kinds of scribes Jesus was referring to.” How did the copyists know Jesus was not referring to people like them?
What positive evidence do you have for blaming copyists for the intentional changes, rather than readers?
Did Tertullian, for example, accuse a Marcionite COPYIST of corrupting scripture? Indeed, did ANY of the church fathers accuse heretical copyists of making changes?
They didn’t *know*. But we don’t have any record of ancient discussions of Jesus’ oppositions to Jewish scribes that relates them in any way to early Christian copyists. So it’s an interesting hypothesis, but as with all hypotheses it would need some evidence.
Church fathers frequently blame copyists. Not sure if you’ver read my stuff, but I cite a number of instances — including e.g., Tertullian, who claimed that heretical copyists altered John 1:13 away from the original singular to the plural so that it no longer referred to the Virgin Birth. On that he was precisely wrong.
The only way for a text to be changed is for someone copying it to change it. Otherwise they’re reintepreting it. But for the words to be altered on the page requires someone who is putting pen to papyrus. I’m not sure what you’re thinking? Readers can’t change the physical words on a page in the act of reading; they get changed in the act of copying. I don’t recall ever seeing or hearing anyone say otherwise. How could they? It’s not physically possible.
You wrote, “Church fathers frequently blame copyists.” and the only example you gave was “Tertullian, who claimed that heretical copyists altered John 1:13”. However, Tertullian does NOT blame copyists. He merely blames “those who have tampered with it”. Unless I am missing something, you are reading “copyists” into this, without justification.
You wrote, “The only way for a text to be changed is for someone copying it to change it.” Not true. As I have pointed out to you before, any church member could ask to borrow a NT manuscript and he or she might then alter the manuscript by erasing text or adding text. A later copyist would then copy this “corrected” text, and the corruption would be passed down to future generations of manuscripts. Alternatively, the owner of the manuscript (the bishop?) could make the edit. You do not have to be someone who copies manuscripts to corrupt a manuscript. You don’t have to be a printer to write in a library book. I don’t know why you find this so difficult to understand. Talk with a colleague.
It is quite possible that you have evidence that I have overlooked. Can you provide it, or agree to stop blaming copyists?
Look, it’s clear youdon’t want to listen. I’ve worked in this field since the late 1970s and I believe I know or know of every major textual critic in the world. I’ve never heard any of htem say that copyists did not change texts. If you think this view is unusual or just wrong, why don’t you provide some bibliography so we I can see hwere you’re getting this from.
You wrote, “I’ve never heard any of htem say that copyists did not change texts.” Here you are straw-manning. I am NOT saying that copyists did not make changes to the texts. I am asking you to provide evidence that copyists were to blame for the vast majority of the deliberate changes. In my own writings I try to be suitably vague, by saying that “someone” deliberately changed a text, whereas you say that a “copyist” did it. Why? How do you know? I asked you many times and received no answer.
I doubt that a copyist would have omitted Matt 23:8b “for you are all siblings”, but a church leader might have done so (to retain his authority).
In the process of researching my recent JSNT article, I found that nearly all the largest disruptions to the texts of Paul’s letters were relevant to the question of who should be in authority in the church. These questions of authority would have been of greater concern to church leaders than to copyists, I think. Genuine question: were the Christological controversies of interest to ordinary Christians, or were they disputes between the highly educated philosophical elites only?
You wrote, “why don’t you provide some bibliography so we I can see hwere you’re getting this from.” Because it is not my job to do your research for you, and because I have already mentioned Stephen Carlson, Ian Mills, Jason Combs, Ulrich Schmid, and David Parker. You are asserting that the deliberate corruptions were made by copyists, so it is your responsibility to provide evidence. Since you have been unable to produce evidence, you should withdraw your assertion, until such a time that evidence comes to light. Your reputation for integrity is at stake. I make no apology for holding you to account, and I hope that you will do the same for me one day.
OK, then why don’t you provide us with the exact references where these scholars say what you claim they say and the quotations that say it with a close eye to the context within which they are saying it, so you can demonstrate to us all that they say what you say they are saying. As you know, three of these were my PhD students, and the other two I have known for thirty years, and I’ve had multiple conversations with all of them on this topic. So if they’ve changed their views, I’d love to see it. I’m sorry not to do the research on it myself that you would like me to do, but I have a rather lot on my plate just now….
You wrote, “OK, then why don’t you provide us with the exact references….”. Because appeals to authority are not a good form of argument, and because it is YOUR responsibility to either justify your assertion or withdraw it. The fact that you have done done neither, and continue to blame the copyists, makes me question your integrity. I am not asking you to declare copyists innocent. All you need to do is a “search and replace” to change “copyists” to “people”.
Also, I gave you this exact reference before, but you took no notice:
Combs writes “It was once commonplace to describe such alterations as “scribal”; e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Although the role of scribes should not be entirely discounted, I acknowledge with David Parker that most intentional alteration of the text likely did not occur during the scribal work of copying the text” (TC 2021).
Interesting. I wonder what Jason is referring to. I personally agree that most alterations of the text of the Gospels, for example, were made by the Matthew and Luke over against Mark, than by later scribes. But I’m not sure if that’s what he has in mind.
And I’m afraid I don’t feel the least “responsibility” to justify anything that people object to. If you have evidence to show me wrong, then go ahead.
Jeff Cate helpfully reminded me of Origen in Matt comm 15.14,
“Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please.”
It seems to me that Origen here is accusing copyists only of sloppiness. According to Origen, it is after the copying process that there was “perverse audacity”, and still later that there were willful interpolations and omissions by those playing the part of correctors.
He’s referring to those who have copied and/or corrected the text of manuscripts that he had available to him. (The difference between mistakes by copyists and correctors is that copyists are scribes who accidentally slip up when they mean to be copying accurately, and correctors are those who intentinally change the text rather than attempt to copy it accurately.) You may be interested in reading Metzger’s article on the explicit references to textual variants in the wriitngs of Origen. And you may want to write Jeff Tate to ask him if he thinks that scribes intentionally changed their texts. I’ve had long conversations with him about the matter.
You wrote, “Interesting. I wonder what Jason is referring to.” It is obvious. He is saying that your work suffers from the (unexamined?) assumption that the orthodox corruptions of the NT were done by copyists.
You wrote, “And I’m afraid I don’t feel the least “responsibility” to justify anything that people object to.” You have given no evidence that the copyists are to blame, yet you continue to put out blog posts that blame the copyists. Your only defence has been to appeal to the authority of your earlier self and your earlier colleagues, who made the same assumption as you. Do you think it is ok for someone to claim to be an expert in a subject while appealing to an out-dated consensus that may simply have been unexamined? I do not. You are better than that, surely. I wonder whether some scholars were/are uncomfortable with the idea that orthodox church leaders corrupted scripture, so they put the blame on copyists instead. Why do you, of all people, throw the copyists under the bus?
OK, if you think it’s obvious, ask him. and don’t say it’s my obligation to do that, because I don’t have any obligations in this matter.
Could you explain to me again how a text in a manuscript gets changed if it is not being changed by the person making the manuscript? (That is, a copyists)
You wrote, “If you have evidence to show me wrong, then go ahead.” I have given you evidence. If you find it inconclusive, then let’s agree that it cannot be proved. Unless you can prove that the copyists were to blame, you should stop blaming them.
Ah, remind me what that evidence is. I don’t recall you citing any manuscript evidence.
May I ask: how much literature on scribal practices have you read? I believe I’ve read all of the major work done for the past two centuries (and most of it from the 17th century onward) and don’t recall ever coming across the view that copyists were not the ones changing the texts.
You wrote, “OK, if you think it’s obvious, ask him.” I will not … because it’s obvious.
You wrote, “and don’t say it’s my obligation to do that, because I don’t have any obligations in this matter.” It is your obligation to have evidence for your assertions. If you think over wise, please ask a trusted colleague.
You wrote, “Could you explain to me again how a text in a manuscript gets changed if it is not being changed by the person making the manuscript?”
I have explained this to you twice before. All I can do is repeat myself. Someone other than a copyist can use a sponge to erase words from a manuscript and/or add letters above a line and/or add words to a margin and/or put deletion marks. Those changes can influence the text that results when the manuscript is copied. What is it about this scenario that you are finding so difficult to understand or remember?
Great. How many instances of expunged words have you found in the surviving manuscripts. And words in margins. And deletion marks. You will find literally hundreds of thousands of scribal alterations with such editorial features. How many do you know with them? (I have one hanging over my desk, the double scribal alteration and re-alteration of Hebrews 1:4 in Vaticanus, notable precisely because it is so highly unusual). Can you cite, say, 5000 of them, to accompany the 495,000 without them?
You asked about manuscript evidence. Is there any manuscript evidence that points the finger at copyists?
Wasserman argued that the deliberate changes that you propose are not made consistently in any one manuscript. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t your rebuttal that the deliberate textual variants were made prior to mixture, which occurred before our earliest manuscripts? If so, we should not expect there to be direct manuscript evidence that will tell us who to blame.
I repeat: I am not saying that copyists were always innocent (how would I know?). I am saying that you have given no evidence that they were to blame for all (or any) of the deliberate corruptions, so you should stop throwing them under the bus.
OK, seriously: have you carefully read Orthodox Corruption of Scripture? I make Wasserman’s point myself and deal with it. As did Eldon Epp before me.
And I don’t know what you mean about changes being made “before mixture.” I definitely know what “mixture” means, since a good bit of my analyses of manuscripts was based on it (my dissertation was ultimately focused on whether there was a “Late Alexandrian” form of the text). I’m just not sure what you mean. At what point is there something “before mixture”?
I did not understand your last two messages. What point(s) are you trying to make?
Hey Bart I had a question regarding the Son of Man and how Jesus viewed him. Especially relating to Jesus own authority in the messianic age. You and I share the theory that Jesus thought of the Son of Man as a separate figure from himself and combined later by Christian authors.
I was wondering than how you thought Jesus thought of his authority compared to the Son of Man. Jesus seems to think he will be the future king of Israel. So did Jesus think the Son of man would have authority over him in the messianic age or is the Son of man just someone who briefly judges the world on God’s behalf and then hands authority over to Jesus when he becomes king. Wondering your thoughts.
Also slightly off topic but what did Jesus think would come of priesthood after he became king. Would it be abolished or would the twelve become co-ruling priests in the messianic age?
Thx again for all you do and your work.
I think Jesus imagined the son of man would bring in the day of judgment and when the slaughter had ended, would appoint him (Jesus) to be the king of those entering the kingdom. Whether the son of man stayed on earth as an ultimate authority or not — I really don’t know.
I think Jesus saw no need for the priesthood even in the present; his teaching of pure forgiveness based on repentance was counter to the idea that htere needed to be a sacrificial cult. It was a pretty radical view (though he may have picked it up from John the Baptist)
Very interesting, and it makes me wonder what the original authors, if they existed, thought about these changes, if they knew about them. As an example, since you have written several books, if you write another manuscript, hand it to an editor and a compositor, and the editor makes a few changes in a number of paragraphs and the compositor makes a few errors, would you consider them authors?
Yup, and I’d be ticked off. It’s happened to me. Once a journal published a book review I wrote and the editor added a few lines without my permission. I didn’t know until it appeared in print. There was some vitriolic complaints about my article in letters to the editor. All the complaints against me were about the lines that I hadn’t written! I demanded the editor apologize. If I remember correctly, he never did.
Bart,
A common perception was that the scribes were just mindless worker bees copying symbols/text from an old page to a new page and that if there were errors made, they were mostly ‘mindless’ errors that were not detected by any final ‘proofreader.’ Many people might find it difficult to rethink of scribes as being more of a freelance translator/copyist than a captive image/copyist. The body of evidence does support the more freelance potential of the scribes. Since scribes were educated to some degree and not all Christian bishops (clergy) were necessarily educated, I wonder if there were scribes functioning in a dual role with some advisory capacity to the bishops.
Many bishops show a ‘work history’ as ‘writers’ but never scribes. A ‘scribe’ almost seems to be a derogatory type of work for a literate. Is there any evidence of scribal promotions to Bishops? I cannot seem to find any. Or maybe a shift to being a ‘writer’ automatically washes away any ‘scribal’ designations…? I am expecting to find NT scribal relationships and stories similar to the various documented Jewish scribal stories – are they any? Or was there a Xtn job description/organizational shift?
Am I correct in thinking that some scribal intepretations began as marginal notes, and that some of these marginal notes were later incorporated into the text itself by later scribes?
That has long been argued, and in some cases it appears to be the case. But it’s very hard to prove.
My personal issue with biblical text is simple: if god is real, which I doubt, and all knowing why wouldn’t god directly influence the scribes? So the text is self-interpreting, and the text can’t be interpreted other than what god intends. This is supposed to be the most important information in the universe from god. I am not educated like most of you are. I can’t imagine why a god, if real, would allow misinformation of his words. And then judge us for it later.