(14 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...When I have public debates with scholars over whether we can know the original text of the New Testament or not, I stake out the claim that we cannot, and they stake out the claim that we probably can. Part of my argument is always the one I started to outline in the previous post. If we take something like the Gospel of Mark, our first complete manuscript of Mark is 300 years after Mark was first produced and put in circulation. So how can we know if that manuscript is extremely close to the original? We don’t have an original to compare it to in order to find out. And we don’t have earlier manuscripts to compare it to in order to find out, except for one remarkable, but highly fragmentary manuscript about a century and half earlier (dating from around 200 CE), which does contain differences from the complete one.
So given this fact, how does my opponent typically argue his case? Normally he cites two important data. There is no disputing either data, and I am completely on board with them being important data. But I don’t think they lead to the conclusion that my opponent draws.
The first datum is that we have far more manuscripts of the New Testament than of any other book from the ancient world – far more manuscripts.
This, of course, is absolutely right – there is no one on the planet (who knows anything about the matter) that would say otherwise. It itself, though, that is not for me any reason to think that we therefore know what was in the New Testament. It’s nice to have lots and lots of manuscripts from a thousand years after the NT was written; but that doesn’t tell us that these manuscripts have a text that is the same as the original.
My opponent will sometimes say, in developing this particular argument, and as if this were scoring a point, that…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Familiar with textual criticism of non-Biblical manuscripts only to the extent that you have discussed them in your books, debates, and blog, I wonder what differences there are between the approaches to analyzing Biblical or non-Biblical manuscripts. I plan to do some research myself, but your brother has done some research in this area, hasn’t he? Can you recommend any texts on either the subject of textual criticism of non-Biblical literature or a comparison between textual criticism of Biblical and non-Biblical literature? I ask this, because your post suggests to me at least a couple reasons for varied approaches; one reason is the theological bias you mention. I wonder whether another reason a different approach may be warranted is possible differences in length of time between oral and written traditions — although perhaps this difference is not qualitative. The longer the time between oral and written tradition, it seems to me, the more likely there may be independent “tellings” — more people writing down the story independently and differently for the first time, rather than creating variants through copying errors, for instance. Maybe this distance in time would be more relevant to some of the oldest Old Testament traditions in which a longer time may have had a longer duration in the oral stage. On the other hand, perhaps the number of scribes who would have had control of the text and who first set down the oral tradition into writing would not have been fewer and not as dispersed as, say, those setting Homer down in writing. I don’t know… Any thoughts?
GRIPES! : “would HAVE been fewer and not as dispersed”
Good question. Many of the principles are the same. But the kinds and quantities of evidence vary. But the time between oral and written wouldn’t affect things, since textual criticism looks only at the copying of the written texts, not at their relation to earlier oral traditions.
More people are determined to believe we know what the original scriptures said because those scriptures are what their religion is based upon. And they really, really *want to believe* we have God’s word.
How can we ever really know how accurate our earliest Gospels are without possessing earlier manuscripts of the Gospels?
Right! There may be ways, but it’s complicated. (E.g., you can see how the text is quoted in early church fathers) (but their texts too come down to us in manuscripts.)
What you need to do is debate two opponents making the second argument at the same time so you can set the at odds with each other over which version of one of the early transmitted variations is preferred.
If you follow the logic, that all variants preserve earlier variants, to the end (or rather the beginning) then all variants must have been in the original text: which is absurd.
Hahah! Great point!
The more copies there are, the more copying errors there are….So, using the number of copies as an argument is not valid. It just means that there are more errors.
The point about Bible scribes having more reason to make changes (namely to fit a given theology) than Plato scribes is a good one.
Thanks for the subject of these posts. I still think you should write a book on “Is the Bible the Word of God?” summarizing the many books that you have written on textual and historical criticism.
Not long ago, I was looking at a recently published book about Henry Folger, the magnate who created the famous Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington. He became obsessed with owning as many copies as he could find–and the best possible copies–of Shakespeare’s First Folio. Which, of course, was published after Shakespeare’s death, and was produced at many different printers.
There were, in fact, many variations in the text of Shakespeare’s plays published after his death. The reason we have his plays in something pretty close to what he originally wrote is that some actor friends of his got together after he died, determined that his work neither be forgotten nor corrupted by bad editions. Although he was popular, he was hardly revered as he came to be–few if any realized he would be remembered as the supreme writer in English, the standard to which all others would be compared.
Now think about this (you probably have). This is the Jacobean era (the same era in which the King James bible was created). They have printing presses. There’s a great deal more literacy than there was in Palestine and outlying areas in the years after Jesus’ death.
The First Folio project was embarked upon very shortly after Shakespeare died, and the plays of course were written down BY SHAKESPEARE HIMSELF, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a script for the actors to perform in the first place. And yet there are textual variants We can’t know with 100% certainty what Shakespeare wrote, word for word, because 1)He may have himself changed it for different productions of the same play, 2)The actors in Shakespeare’s day were well known for ad libbing lines, which might then be added to the text of the play if the audience responded well to the ad libs, and 3)Printers are human.
And further complicating all this is the long-standing and notorious school of thought that says Shakespeare didn’t write a word of those plays.
We’re approaching the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. He is a man of the late Renaissance; a figure of early modern history, not ancient history.
So the notion that we can know we have the original text of the gospels can only be justified by faith. Never by reason. It simply does not hold up to rational scrutiny. And basically everything of consequence that has ever been written has been rewritten. Any writer will tell you that.
Perhaps I should also have mentioned this–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29#Publication_history
A book that was first published in its entirely in 1922, and we’re still not 100% what the ‘correct’ version of it would be. Nor will we ever be, I’d guess (having tried and failed to read it years ago, I have my doubts the controversy could ever be fully resolved).
Wherever there is a text, there is controversy. But better to be argued about than ignored, right?
And it would seem to me that more copies would make the problem greater, not less.
More copies don’t make the problem worse, they just make you more aware of how big the problem really is.
I find this puzzling, because to me, it seems *obvious* that you can’t know you have the original readings. I’m still seeing this problem: if you *know* scholars *can’t get any closer* to the originals than you already have, what’s the point of continuing to work in the field of textual criticism?
Stay tuned!
I have a different kind of concern with the texts: Did authors of the original texts have the same understanding as those who actually encountered Jesus — heard and seen him?
Reporters — even eyewitnesses, which the gospel authors do not claim to be — often get the story wrong, sometimes very wrong because lacking important background knowledge, they do not understand the context of an event or the jargon used by the principals being reported on. So, even if we had the original words, which as you say is never a sure thing, how valid an account of events are the gospels, even when scribes were not making amendments/transcribing errors?
If Mark’s gospel is to be taken at face value, the very people who did spend time with Jesus did not always understand the man. The Gospel of Thomas is intentionally cryptic, but I think it’s possible that the other gospels are also hiding something, and not always because the author intended to. Some of what those authors reported might have been a mystery to them as well.
I keep returning to the Nag Hammadi discoveries and the Didache for insights into those possible mysteries. In reading Kurt Niederwimmer’s extensive commentary of the Didache, I was pleasantly surprised. He cites two improvements (on page xv of the Preface) in the second edition of his book. The second edition became necessary because of work done by none other than Bart D. Ehrman, specifically, your paper, ”The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind.” Niederwimmer says that in your “understanding Didymus cites the Didache as a canonical work, belonging to the New Testament.”
For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with Didymus, but at the very least I think you can count K. Niederwimmer among those scholars who value your work, or who will at least acknowledge its validity and make the necessary corrections in his own work.
Do you agree with Didymus that the Didache is old enough (1st Century?) and enough of a reliable account of early Jewish-Christian/Gentile liturgy/catechism to include it in the canon?
I don’t think the Didache was widely used enough, or seen as ancient enough, or sufficiently apostolic, to have a chance finally of making it into the canon.
“Presumably no one copying Euripides or Cicero had personal ideological reasons for wanting them to say something different from what they said;”
Perhaps not ideological motives, but there is a more subtle problem in that, apparently, it was common practice for some scribes to improve upon texts with their own ideas of meter and style. Aside from copyists taking this approach, those learning to read and write in the ancient world would copy texts of Homer and, as they progressed in skill, even try to emulate and improve upon the classic stories. I don’t think this has much relevance to NT text criticism, except perhaps to point to a general freedom with regard to texts in the ancient world, but some have started to use this approach to understand ways in which the stories in the gospels sometimes reflect wider Greco-Roman motifs found in older, classical literature. I’m thinking of the work of Dennis MacDonald and some other NT scholars.
Good point.
The arguments that we have the original text seem absurd from one (I think) important perspective; that is, possible (probable?) deletions. If you take the oft cited (on the History Channel type shows) geographic proximity of Nazareth to Sephoris and the likelihood Jesus visited the Roman city (complete with its lifestyle mosaics) it is then also likely Jesus made less than endearing comments about the Romans. Equally likely such comments were never recorded in the Gospels or, if they were, such comments were deleted before many copies were made to hide them from the Romans.
Overall case in point – without the autographs no one can ever know if there were deletions…. for whatever reason.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. All the variants my opponents and I are talking about are within the canon. (Another point: I don’t think anything ever precludes a transcriptional error; by definition they are always possible whenever there is transcription — that is, when a scribe is copying the text.)
You frequently note that variations in surviving manuscripts are overwhelmingly harmless (e.g., spelling errors, inadvertent omissions), distinguishing these from the far fewer but more consequential differences that appear to be deliberate alterations to preempt theological problems (e.g., replacing “Your father and I…” in the Jesus and the Temple Elders pericope in Luke with a less fraught “We…” or “Joseph and I…”)
Why not simply stay within the canon? The Rich Young Man pericope provides a perfect example of a later scribal alteration to redress an obvious theological problem. We have the original in Mark. We have a faithful reproduction of the original by Luke. And we have the blatant emendations by Matthew — who has obviously moved the word “good” from inquirer’s salutation to Jesus’ reply.
This double modification precludes transcription error. The clear purpose was to allow for replacing the problematic “Why do call me good? No one is good but God alone.” with an acceptable “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”
Could there be a better example of an author revising the text to make Jesus’ words comport with his own theological presuppositions?
I’m not sure what you mean about staying within the canon. These textual variants *are* in the canon. Do you mean why not look at how different authors changed their predecessors? Oh yes, that’s an even *larger* cottage industry in New Testament studies, and scholars engage in it all the time. I often do on the blog. But that’s “redaction criticism,” not “textual criticism.” In the case you cite, it is almost certainly not a transcriptional error but an intentional alteration to avoid a possible misreading (either that Jesus is not good or that he is not God)
Sorry. That was a tad cryptic. To clarify:
The issue of textual variants in surviving manuscripts is usually an important part of your presentations and debates. Since your opponents and/or audiences (usually both) are invariably Bible Inerrancy adherents, an example of a scribal alteration from within the canon that corrects the words of Jesus to make them comport with church doctrine would certainly be dispositive.
We have such an instance in the prologue to the Rich Young Man pericope (Mk 10:17-18) when Jesus cautions his inquisitor against confusing messenger and message. He commits what would soon become about the most grievous possible Christian blasphemy by disavowing the description of himself as “good” — because “no one is good except God alone.” He is explicit that he is not to be mistaken for or regarded AS God.
The first scribes to copy Mark would eventually become known as the gospel authors, Luke and Matthew, one of whom preserved the text intact (Lk 18:18-19), the other incontestably rewriting his source to remove the theological problem (Mt 19:16-17) that Jesus created by his ignorance of his own nature and revealed in his own words.
This seems pretty definitive to me.
OK, I think I know now what you’re asking: you are talking about how the words of Jesus in, say, Mark, get changed by Matthew and / or Luke. Yes indeed, that happens all the time and is far more often discussed by biblical scholars. I deal at length with this in my book Jesus Interrupted. For my money it’s an even *more* important issue than what the scribes did with the texts they were copying.
Thanks for the reply and the tip about “Jesus Interrupted.” It turns out I don’t have that one (an omission I am now remedying.) If this book also has the kind of objective deconstruction and keen analysis exemplified in both “Misquoting Jesus” and “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” it will certainly be well worth reading.
I cited the pericope of the “Rich Young Man” because no one denies that it originated with Mark — or that Mark’s gospel became the primary source for both Luke and Matthew. It is also manifest that one of those subsequent authors preserved the original dialog, the other substantially and deliberately altered it in what could only have been an amelioration of the theological problems these words of Jesus created. Even if consideration was confined to only Mark and Matthew, it would be no small feat to refute the implication that Matthew intentionally altered his source. With Luke corroborating the original it is plainly impossible.
In as much as all three works are part of the accepted, canonical text, I can’t imagine a more compelling piece of evidence for the patent absurdity of so-called “Bible Inerrancy.”
Speaking of Jesus speaking heretical things…
All three versions of this pericope go on to have him provide a patently WRONG answer to the Rich Young Man’s ($64,000) question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
He advises the man to live virtuously, i.e., in accord with the well-known precepts in the Ten Commandments. Undoubtedly already a devout Jew, the man presses to know whether or not something more might be done. Jesus then adds that if this persistent inquisitor “would be perfect” he should eschew all worldly attachments and devote himself entirely to pursuing spiritual attainment.
The follow-up question/answer here presupposes that there are degrees of salvation — presumably with corresponding rewards in the eternal afterlife — a concept that, I believe, had been repudiated even before the Council of Nicaea. Although probably more a political than spiritual concern, as I understand it church doctrine has held salvation to be a one-time, entirely binary, either/or proposition ever since formal recognition by Emperor Constantine.
Of course, knowledge and understanding of church history may be wanting in this English major. I’d welcome any corrections/clarifications.
See today’s post, which was made befoer I saw your comment!
Interesting coincidence — and I can double down on it. Below is the rest of what I was going to say before I recognized that it just wasn’t gonna happen in 200 words (an understandable blog constraint, but pretty unrealistic for someone who used to struggle with the 650 limit of editorial pages.)
I am fairly certain that according to every denomination of the Christian church — from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to Presbyterian and Anglican to Southern Baptist and Seventh Day Adventist — Jesus’ answer to the Rich Young Man’s question about how to “inherit eternal life” was 100% wrong! All varieties of the Christian faith agree that neither the strictest adherence to the Ten Commandments nor total devotion to taking a spiritual rather than material path through this vale of tears will lead to eternal life.
Both approaches directly contradict the theology propounded by Paul — and eventually embraced by the church as a fundamental article of faith — by assuming that the opportunity to inherit eternal life was even available to, much less able to be effected by, the Rich Young Man acting on his own behalf.
[Arrgggh!]
[Wrapping up…]
According to universally-averred church doctrine, the correct answer would have been: “There is NOTHING you can do to inherit eternal life. But if you will wait around a bit, I am about to be brutally murdered as a blood sacrifice to Yahweh. This will finally appease the guilt borne by you and all the rest of Adam’s progeny for his pilfering of an apple from a certain tree in the Garden of Eden. Once Yahweh’s thirst for vengeance has been sated the grudge he currently still bears against all humanity will be forgiven. IFF you will both believe this and accept me as your stand-in — your Whipping Boy for Yahweh — only then will you inherit eternal life.”
PS I read your (timely and spot-on) post on this issue. I’d guess students respond to your challenge by diving into that famous, Egyptian river — Denial. I am curious about your citation from Galatians rather than citing the usual, apologist go-to of Eph 2:8-9. Is this because the attribution of Ephesians to Paul is dubious? While that may be true among scholars, the distinction doesn’t exist for Inerrancy apologists.
As you probably know, there really aren’t universally accepted beliefs throughout all of Christendom. But you’re right, De nial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
If you know of a denomination that didn’t drink the Pauline “substitute-sacrifice” apple cider, do share. I’ve been looking for one to join for some time now. (“But if they let me join…”)
Hey, try the Unitarians!