Loading...QUESTIONS:
Would you agree that the letter written to the Philippians was an original writing of Paul? Do you agree that the first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians was also an original? Assuming there were errors made by the person(s) who copied the original letter of Paul to the Philippians, would you agree that the first copy even with some errors still had the original context of the first letter. If you do agree, then is it totally accurate to say that we don’t have the original letter of Paul written to the Philippians? Don’t you think that it’s more accurate to state that we do have the original but it has been altered to some degree? Has the letter to the Philippians written by Paul been altered so much that we can’t really know what the original proclaimed?
RESPONSE:
These are great questions. They have the benefit of making very concrete some of the things that I have said, in general terms, about the textual tradition of the New Testament. I think I might devote a few posts to delving into the issues that the questioner has raised, since the answers are not as simple as one might imagine, and they open up a number of very interesting issues that need to be decided when trying to resolve the questions of (a) what the “original” text of a book like Philippians might have been, and (b) whether we can reasonably hope to know what that original text was.
But before going into detail with various parts of the problems that are involved, let me give here in this post a more rapid-fire shorthand response to each of the questions seriatim. I’ll do that by repeating each question and then giving a brief reply.
1) Would you agree that the letter written to the Philippians was an original writing of Paul?
Yes, Philippians is one of the seven “undisputed letters” of Paul, a phrase that scholars use as a short hand to say that virtually (but not entirely) all scholars are sure that Paul really wrote these letters, as opposed to the pseudepigraphical letters that are thought widely not to have been written by Paul even though they claim Paul as their author. The undisputed letters are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The others are all thought – either by most critical scholars or by lots of them – to be “forged” – that is written in the name of Paul by someone claiming to be Paul even though he was, and knew that he was, someone else.
One problem with Philippians, however, that I will need to address, is whether it is in fact a single letter. There are good reasons, as it turns out, for thinking that it is two fragments of letters that have been spliced together into one.
2) Do you agree that the first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians was also an original?
I’m not sure I know what this question means. The first copy of a book is not the original of the book but the first copy of the original. It is an “original first copy” – but it is not the original of the book. Even more significant: what does it mean to call something the “original”? On one hand, part of the answer to this question is easy: the term “original” is not applied to any of the copies made after the original was made. But what is the original? The answer may seem obvious to you (it used to seem obvious to me!). But I’m going to show in a later post why, in fact, it is highly problematic.
3) Assuming there were errors made by the person(s) who copied the original letter of Paul to the Philippians, would you agree that the first copy even with some errors still had the original context of the first letter?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the members’ site. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN WHILE THERE’S STILL TIME!!!
Member content continues:
Seems to me as if someone is trying to push you into a corner and what they view as a way lain trap. Also seems the questioner is assuming that ancient scribal copyists used something akin to a printing press so that as today, copy number 1 is as exact as the digital data that went into the printer.
You may be right! But it’s not all that easy to trap me in academic discussions in my own field!
I have two questions.
1. Is it likely that any of the inauthentic letters could have been written by a collaborator of Paul , maybe on request from Paul, maybe not, but later approved by Paul, because all the ideas in it are genuinely Pauline, and only the writing style differs?
2. Would you agree that the portions of the extant copies that are without variants insignificantly differs from the original? I am aware that in some instances extant copies of a variant-free piece of text may go back to one single copy which in itself has an erroneous history, but I would judge that to be not very likely. Did the genealogical tree of copying spread out horizontally very early? If so, it would increase the probability of a close match between the original and the variant-free sections of the texts.
On 1., you may want to read my book Forgery and Counterforgery, where I deal with that option and show why it is not probable, given what we know about authorship in antiquity. I’ll deal with 2. in later posts — but here let me just say that most critics are pretty sure that if there are no variants in our manuscripts, we can trust that we are dealing with the “original.” But it’s only a probability, not a certainty, for reasons I’ll go into.
Great questions on a very good topic.
I’m looking forward to the rest of your replies.
Bart, I am curious, how can you have a pretty good idea of what the autograph said? The earliest copy is 150 years removed. Sometimes I don’t think people realize how long a period of 150 years is, let alone how primitive methods of communication and living conditions were for “average” humans in ancient times.
Wayne
Yes, that’s what I’m discussing!
Is the earliest text (copy) of Philippians, P75? Thanks.
No, P75 has Luke and John (fragmentarily). The earliest for Paul is P46.
Would you say its easier to determine what was accurate dependent on the variants through different languages? Since there are other languages that made copies of the copies of the copies, wouldn’t it be better to trace errors when comparing them through different languages? An example I would use is Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc.
There are no Aramaic or Hebrew versions, but yes, the early versions are used to help determine the text, principally Latin, Coptic, and Syriac (a dialect similar to Aramaic). These too are problematic though, and are found in manuscript traditions that also evidence lots of variation.
How significant are these variants? I know they vary but is there anything fundamental to Christendom that would be fundamentally flawed like the virgin birth or the resurrection that does not take place in these variants that are of material value?
No, there aren’t any major doctrines that would *necessarily* change because of the variants. But they matter for the interpretation of individual books, a good deal. I think I’ll address the question — it’s a good ‘un — on the blog.
Questions 2,3, and 5 are not clear to me. Where is the questioner headed? He/she seems to be headed toward some point which I don’t yet get?
The questions remind me of the long winding confusing questions an attorney once asked me during a deposition and then bingo there was some point that I had not seen coming.
Is the point of the questioner that one cannot use the Christ poem to draw any conclusions about Christology?
I think he wants to argue that we really do have the original text of Philippians, and he is trying to get me to admit that.
DR EHRMAN:
The questioner asked, “Do you agree that the first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians was also an original?”
I think the questioner meant what you “guessed.” “It is an “original first copy”
I’d like to expand on this question and ask you: Do we have the original first copy of the letter written by Paul to the Philippians?
The questioner asked, “Assuming there were errors made by the person(s) who copied the original letter of Paul to the Philippians, would you agree that the first copy even with some errors still had the original context of the first letter?
Again I think you guessed correctly that the questioner really meant to ask, “original contents” rather than “original context”
The questioner asked, “Don’t you think that it’s more accurate to state that we do have the original but it has been altered to some degree?”
I think the questioner meant to say that it’s “more accurate” to state that we do have the words of Paul, even if they have been altered to some degree, (I do not know whether they have been changed or not) as oppose to asserting that we don’t have any of his words at at all.