Loading...I have been talking about the problems in knowing what the “original” text of Philippians is. Even with the following brief review, the comments I will be making in this post will, frankly, probably not make much sense if you do not refresh your memory from my previous two posts. Here I will be picking up where I left off there.
We have seen that knowing what the original of Philippians is complicated by the facts that: 1) The letter appears originally to have been two letters, so that it’s hard to know whether the original of each separate letter is to be the original or if the final edited version, which Paul himself did not produce, is the original; 2) Paul dictated his letters, and the scribe who wrote down his dictation would typically have made a fresh copy of the letter after Paul had made a few corrections – so which is the original: what the scribe originally wrote or the fresh copy he made after the corrections?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hello, Dr. Ehrman.
Thought-provoking post. Thank you.
As I was reading this aloud to my wife, she wondered if scribes in antiquity had a kind of shorthand they used during dictation, then produced a final copy from the shorthand. It would likely add an additional layer of uncertainty regarding the “original.” Do you have any thoughts?
Cicero’s secretary Tiro invented a kind of short hand, but I doubt if that would have been available/used by Christian scribes. Paul either dictated slowly or the scxribes wrote fast!
Perhaps just useless speculation, but could Paul’s malady have been to do with his eyesight? He talks of one story where he was blinded, and in another he mentioned his writing has very big letters. Is that ever mentioned as an option? It could also explain why he had a scribe. I believe you mentioned with respect to Mark/Peter that scribes were extremely uncommon?
Yes, it’s one of the theories. (Along with many other options!)
What is the “original” version of today’s post? The one that you decided to publish, right? Every earlier version, no matter how it was produced, was a draft-in-process. So, it seems to me, Paul’s “original” letter to the Philippians (assuming for now that Paul wrote only one) is the one that was delivered to the Philippians. Of course, this letter is lost to history and all attempts to reconstruct it can only be approximations. These recent posts, while interesting, deal with thorny issues involving the “production” of the letter. At some point, Paul determined that the letter was finished and ready to send. That’s the “original” letter.
I agree with lms728 that whatever letter(s) left Paul and was delivered to Philippi should be considered the original, warts and all. The bigger problem to me is that even if we discovered a super-early version of one of the letters how could we know it was an original or even an early copy of the original? There is nothing to identify an ancient letter as “the original.” In fact, if we stumbled upon the true 1st letter to Philippi and it had material not in the New Testament version many (most?) would reject it as “the original” because it wouldn’t match the accepted text in the NT. Seems like a can’t-win situation.
Yup! Those passionate for the original may want to be careful for what they wish for….
Thank you Dr Ehrman for sharing your wealth of knowledge with us mere mortals (non scholars)! Making specialized learning accessible to all is how ignorance is dispelled, and we all can grow into understanding, acceptance, and peace- beginning always within and expanding into and through that which is outside of the ME.
Thank you for your proactive and consistent efforts to make us all better through thinking!
I actually do have a question: your devotion to NT, and often obvious REVERENCE- towards the Synoptics in particular, is that because YOU believe Jesus was a powerful prophet- yet entirely human, yet his legend fascinates you?
Simply Sofia 👍🏽🧠☮️
I don’t know how powerful he was, and his main prophecy (the imminent end of the age) didn’t come true. But I am indeed fascinated by him and his teachings, and by how they affected the world down to our own day.
What does Paul’s access to a. scribe tell us? I’ve never thought of Paul as wealthy but even if the scribe was a fellow believer he would still have to be supported financially . Candida Moss thinks they were slaves. Could Paul afford a slave?
I don’t think there’s anything solid to suggest they were slaves. If he had them, they would have been given to him by others I should think.
Lms728 has succinctly summarised my own response to the question.
Hello, Bart,
How should we interpret the word “hate” in the following passage?
Luke 14:26 NRSV
[26] “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
— Matthew has a different nuance:
Matthew 10:37 NRSV
[37] Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
— Do you think they are telling the same thing and if not, what do each author want to emphasise?
Evanghelists interpret Luke to say “hate”= love less — but the word doesn’t mean that
Others have interpreted it as following:
— “Jesus’ command to “hate father and mother” requires us to prioritize our relationship with Jesus over our relationship with parents, siblings, and other family members. ”
What do you think of all this?
It would be interesting having a post on it, if you consider
“Hate” is stronger than “love less.” I’d say that “hate” in this context means something like “thinks of and treats as if they don’t matter at all” And yes, giving jesus complete priority over family members would make sense in this context. Whether it’s something he really said or not is another matter, and I’d say that’s difficult to know.