As I have indicated, my PhD dissertation was written in the field of textual criticism, with a focus on the patristic evidence; my topic was the quotations of the Gospels found in the writings of Didymus the Blind, a famous teacher/theologian who was active in Alexandria Egypt in the middle and at the end of the fourth century. Possibly by explaining what the dissertation was I can help show why patristic evidence can be so valuable for understanding the history of the transmission of the text of the NT.
I have already shown how Patristic citations can help us determine if a variant reading (that is, a way of wording the text that differs from the way it is worded in other witnesses) may well be original (thus my posts on Luke 3:22). That is obviously one of the most important goals – many would argue that it is THE important goal, or even the ONLY important goal, though I think this is too extreme – of textual criticism, namely, to know what the author originally wrote given the fact that we have different versions of the original words. But there are other goals, and one of them has to do with how that original text came to be changed over time.
It is important to know when, where, and why the text got changed for several reasons. One is that if you don’t know how it got changed, then you can’t very well tell which variant readings are the changes and which are the original. In particular, if it is possible to determine that in, say, one particular place and time, the text was preserved relatively intact without significant changes, then isolating the form of the text in that time and place will take us a long way in helping to know what the originals looked like.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
Your current posts on the Patristic Fathers and Didymus the Blind raise many questions in my mind that I want to ask.
I will ask just one and explain my reasons for asking.
Question:
**Why is it so important to determine which word or words used in a text are the original words used by the original writers of any given text….what difference does it make if there are variations?**
I am not a classic Fundamentalist. Far from it. Such a person believes that the Bible text is the source of all true knowledge of God, given by God word for word, inerrant and without flaw. There are even some who say that only the KJV is the true inerrant Bible in English (the translation guided by God’s hand) and some go so far as to indicate that the 1611 edition is even more inspired, and that the original documents in the original languages are also without error but are not available to us.
For them, the purity of the text (the words) is most important !!
For me, I look to the general *meaning* in the the text and not to the words as such. For me, I seek to find in Scripture truths to guide me as I live my life as God wants it lived. The exact words are irrelevant in so far as they convey the meaning of the text and provide me and other believes with an understanding of God’s will in my life.
(One more thought on a personal level)…so much of textual and historical analysis is based on written documents we call The Holy Bible and the other documents related to that. I look to a more metaphysical and somewhat mystic twist to all of this, often through prayer and meditation. I look to what Paul calls the “Spirit of the Risen Christ” to guide me personally and to guide others personally, from within our spirit…scripture being only one source of that guidance.
That being said, why do you think it is so important to understand what the exact text truly says…the words? Will that bring back your faith? Will that help us grow stronger in our faith? Will quoting the correct words bring others to the faith (a Fundamentalist approach)? Or is it only an academic exercise to determine who said what and when and where and why…for the sake of historical understanding?
Please do not take this as a criticism of your work. This is problem more about ME than you…it is something that has had my mind and soul in turmoil for some time that I can’t even bring myself to read scripture now knowing that what I read is likely contrived. I am now to critical to read scripture devotionally.
Any thoughts on this question will be most appreciated.
Textual criticism gets done for all books written by hand — including all the classics (not just the NT and OT, but also Plato, Euripides, Homer, Cicero, Livy, you name it!). The reason is because people want to know what important authors said (so they can understand what they meant), and you can’t know what an author said if you don’t know which words he used! This isn’t a matter of fundamentalism; it’s simply a basic need/interest of historical study.
We’re talking about words, and words are truly difficult to use to convey what our minds want to say, even in what I am now writing. What I want to say is difficult to put into…words.
While in seminary I always awaited a new translation of scripture thinking that some new insight might be revealed as new understandings unfolded, especially in the text and the meaning of the words and the truths they hold. Such was the idealism of a young seminarian. I was always disappointed.
I now realize that with documents so old (whether Christian scripture, the writings of Muhammed or Plato or the Sutras or whatever), and with so many originals lost or destroyed forever, and being written by so many different people with so many levels of copying, forgery, and stupid errors, that we will *never truly know* what the originals said or the precise words used, or what those words meant to the writers or what they mean to us. We will never hear: “Ah ha, at last, here it is !!”
Your job is not a simple task and will never be completed. Thank you again for sharing it with us here.
TC may get done for “all books written by hand,” as you say, but it is only done by a select group of scholars and appreciated by a limited number of people. While it matters in certain circles, it’s of small consequence to the world at large.
Professor, I don’t have my copy of “Didymus” as I write this but recall that most of the quotations are is in Greek without any translation (on the assumption, I imagine, that only scholars conversant in Greek would be reading it). Did you ever do a revision with translation ?
No, no plans for an edition for laypersons with translations. The whole study depended on the precise Greek words being used, so an English translations just wouldn’t make any sense.
Could you also include some discussion of Codex Alexandrinus and how it compares with and differs from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Thanks
It’s hard to do that without getting pretty technical. The short story is that Alexandrinus is a *bit* later than the other two (maybe 50 years or so?), is not as strong a witness as them, and in the Gospels especially is not as good.
A very helpful to the point reply. Thanks a bunch.
Hi Bart, I have a question unrelated to this post.
What are the core concepts that, in your opinion, the christian doctrine has taken from the Greek philosophy? Can you advice me where to delve deeper into this subject (book, articles, ecc..)?
Thanks for your work and your outstanding blog! I also hope that in the near future you will post something about the Gospel of John and his historical validity or maybe some new extracts from your new book 🙂
I’m not sure I’ve ever thought about it in those terms. I suppose the “immortality of the soul” (without the body) would be one major doctrine. I’ll have to think of others.
Bart, although not a NT scholar, I am nonetheless interested in your more serious work nailing down when the NT text was changed and why. I will continue to read your posts with great interest. I also repost your general comments on my timeline with the hope of getting other friends interested in both your scholarship and philanthropy.
After reading “God’s Problem” I also found myself uneasy saying prayers of gratitude before meals although I continue that tradition with my family when I am home and am enjoying a family meal with them. I also became very uneasy after reading “Misquoting Jesus” the first of your books that I read. I was uneasy because for the first time a voice was given to the many misgivings I had about my excellent 12 year Roman Catholic education. For the first time I felt my questions were at least being addressed if not outright answered; but it was also like learning the truth about the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
I continue to root for the Roman Catholic Church like a die hard Cubs or Mets fan but I am not hopeful for them. I also root for Christians everywhere and look forward to a time when Christianity is practiced as much in the streets as in the pews. Sorry for the editorializing but there is a full moon tonight in Seoul and I am feeling a little manic. DRA
Accepting the concerns as to the accuracy or motives of copying scribes, as expressed at Revelation 22:18 and 19, as well as by Suetonius, Irenaeus, Rufinus and Jerome, it seems probable that many of the Early Church Fathers would have had available to them manuscripts containing errors.
Are there many instances of Patristic writers accepting and repeating such an error, influencing their own beliefs and or theology, and consequently that of others.
I believe Irenaeus, at AH 3.13.3, quotes from a manuscript of Galatians 2:5, which omits the negative, saying “…we did submit to them…”, rather than “. ..we did not submit to them…”. This probably did not have consequences, but serves as an example of reliance on an incorrect passage in a manuscript.
Yes, I cite instances of this here and there in the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.