Loading...When I realized that I did not want to spend my life as a text-critical technician – collating and classifying Greek manuscripts – it became obvious to me the way to go. Textual critics at the time generally understood that there were two major tasks in the discipline: to establish the original text (that is, the text in the words written by the actual authors, as opposed to the changes of the text made by later scribes) and to write the history of its transmission (seeing how it had been modified over the years in different times and places). And I realized that through no tragic fault or brilliant plan of my own, I had been trained to do both things: the first requires substantial expertise in exegesis (the interpretation of texts), and the second requires a knowledge of early Christian history. These were the two areas I had focused on in my graduate training, in all those years when I wanted, instead, simply to be trained in reading manuscripts.
I think it is widely *under-appreciated* by textual critics (still today) just how vitally important the role of exegesis is in establishing what an author wrote. This will take a bit of explaining, over a couple of posts.
Suppose you have a verse that is worded in two very different ways in various ones of the surviving manuscripts. How do you decide which of the two ways is how the author originally wrote the verse, and which is a change committed by a scribe? Scholars appeal to all sorts of evidence, each one important. Here are some criteria that have been appealed to over the years. These criteria are typically divided into two categories: those dealing with external evidence (those look at which manuscripts support one reading over the other) and the other dealing with internal evidence (looking at which reading is inherently superior for one reason or another). I’ll deal with the former in this post, the latter (where exegesis comes into play) in the next.
External Evidence
- The number of manuscripts that support one reading or another. You might think at the outset that this would be the most important factor – if lots of manuscripts have one of the readings and only a few have the other, then the majority should win, right? Well, not actually. Here’s why.THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Seems like you’d have more than one criterion for most manuscripts, but even with multiple criteria is it generally hard to get a good consensus on which is closest to the original?
In most cases, no. In many, yes.
These nuts and bolts mechanics of textual criticism are really interesting.
Thanks for posting about them.
With regards to oral tradition, i was reading today some comments made by your old teacher, the excellent Bruce Metzger in regards to his position on the now famous Adulteress woman passage in John’s gospel. As you know he subscribes to the fact it was missing in lots of early bibles, but he seemed to be happy with the theory that the story was passed down via oral tradition, according to what he wrote at the time, “it has all the earmarks of historical veracity”. Do you think he was being swayed by his own confirmation bias of wanting it to be so? I know very little about the man himself other than his extensive knowledge of the New Testament.
Oral tradition does seem fraught with potential to “muddy the water”, especially over such a long time period.
Sorry if this comment is out of place, .. I’m new here ( that’s my excuse)
Yes, my sense is that the passage was so familiar and dear to him that he felt it must be authentic to the life of Jesus.
Good post, especially the explanation of why an earlier manuscript might not be as reliable as a later manuscript since the earlier manuscript might be a copy of a later text than the other manuscript.
Dr. Ehrman, a “side question” if I may. Do you view the “extracted or reverse engineered Q source ” a worthwhile stand alone document to read to try to get a feel for the historical Jesus? If so, iIs there a version or translation that you find more preferable? I have Burton Mack’s translation simply because I found it on the internet. Thanx in advance.
Yes, I think that can be a useful exercise. Doesn’t Kloppenborg have a translation?