One of the chapters on Ehrman´s book called “Misquoting Jesus”, deals with the changes in the texts.
As he himself states, it would be a mistake to conclude that the only changes were caused by copyists with personal interests in the lexical disposition of the text. In fact, many of the changes found in the early Christian manuscripts had nothing to do with theology or ideology.
Most changes are, by far, the pure and simple result of mistakes, such as slips of the feather pen, accidental omissions, unnoticed additions and such nonsense. I think this is because most of them seems to be inefficient or let´s say unqualified scribes. I don´t know, perhaps some of them were often tired or bored.
Well the question is whether copyists and scribes (whatever you want to call) actually changed the texts for theological reasons. Did they changed it for theological reasons? If so, why and for what purpose? What are the strong evidences for it?
Robert said
Each textual variant needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Bart makes a very strong case for the Western non-interpolations in Luke, in my opinion. He demonstrates that this Western version of the text of Luke provides a more consistent Lukan theological perspective, while otherwise not following the Western tendency toward expansion, whereas the interpolatios are also easily explained as reflecting a particular proto-orthodox perspective. On the other hand, the supposed addition of ‘son of God’ to Mk 1,1 is much less convincing, in my opinion. This is much easier explained as an easy scribal mistake due to homeoteleuton in a long list of masculine singular genetive endings, which are even more difficult with the use of nominal sacra.If you want to delve into the more scholarly version of his arguments for each individual passage, take a look at ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Hi Robert,
I will definately read the link you have provided. But for now, just a quick question. What do you mean by “Western non-interpolations?”
Robert said
The ground-breaking Westcott-Hort 1882 edition of the Greek New Testament considered these shorter readings, especially in the gospel of Luke, to be original and thus the expanded Greek text in other text types and versions to be interpolations (later additions to the text). Westcott & Hort named these shorter texts “Western non-interpolations” and placed them within double brackets to show that they were not part of the earliest text.
Just one thing, cause it´s not making any sense to me.
If the expanded Greek Text are considered to be interpolations, which means later additions to the text by scribes or copyists, then, I guess these should be placed within double brackets and not the shorter reading, since shorter readings shown to be original.
I know a decent christian scholar who is in fact the CEO and president of Christian Publishing House. He´s name is Edward D. Andrews and we often exchange ideas and conversations on these topics and dealing with this one specifically, here is what he said to me.
Quote: There are for more variants than there are words, I have an entire book on that. There are well over 400,000 variants and only about 138,000 words in the Greek NT. However, Ehrman is a master at hyping things up in a sensationalist way and leaving out the details that give the entire picture. The variants aren’t based on one greek text but 5,898 Greet NT manuscripts. And there are other things to consider as well. It is like I tell you that America has 14% black population and the American prison system is made up of 70% black population. It looks bad, doesn’t it? But I left out the fact that a Black offender is five more times likely to go to prison for the same offense as a white offender, who usually gets probation. Once you receive all the details, the picture changes.
400,000+ SCRIBAL ERRORS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS: What Assurance Do We Have that We Can Trust the Bible? by ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
2nd quote from him:
No, it isn’t about better or worse spelling. It is a really long story, so I am going to give you the short of it here. But do not worry, I sent you an early Christmas present. So, 615 pages of all you need to know.
FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate to New Testament Textual Studies by ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Estimated delivery: July 27, 2020 – Aug. 3, 2020
Ok, textual scholars got the wrong impression about the early copies when the NT papyri manuscripts started to be found in the early part of the 20th century. Sadly, the first few manuscripts found gave the impression of many mistakes by inexperienced copyists. Thus, many of the early comments by textual scholars, Sir Frederic Kenyon, Kurt Aland, J. Harold Greenlee, and others that the early period was when we got most of our textual errors. This was the often-repeated thought for a couple decades. Then, the next NT papyri and all others found since then said otherwise. But it is hard to turn the Titanic or stop a moving train, so, this idea of early mistakes is good for Ehrman, for the Byzantine, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, KJV Onlyists, so it is still repeated today.
Thus, the actual truth is, we have the 27 books of the New Testament that were penned individually in the second half of the first century. Each of these would have been copied and recopied throughout the first century. Copies of these copies would, of course, be made as well. Some of the earliest manuscripts that we now have indicate that a professional scribe copied them. Many of the other papyri provide evidence that a semi-professional hand-copied them, while most of these early papyri give evidence of being made by a copyist who was literate and experienced at making documents. Therefore, either literate or semi-professional copyists produced the vast majority of our early papyri, with some being made by professionals.
3rd and final quote:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** I AM GOING TO GO AT THIS WITH A NEW APPROACH: I have been assisting you, now I am going to challenge you a little.
NOTE: Ehrman lies, misrepresents, misleads, and misinforms. He will tell the reader that there are more scribal errors in the Greek NT than there are Greek words and not clear that up, leaving out information. He will then give the reader a few of the most serious examples, leaving them with the impression that they are all so egregious.
BURDEN OF PROOF: The burden of proof falls on the one making the claims. If the Christian is witnessing to another, he has the burden to prove what he says is so if asked for proof. However, if the critic is challenging the Christian, the burden of disproving lies with the critic. Or, if another Christian is challenging another Christian.
YOU WROTE: One of the chapters on Ehrman´s book called “Misquoting Jesus”, deals with the changes in the texts.
RESPONSE: What chapter?
YOU WROTE: As he himself states, it would be a mistake to conclude that the only changes were caused by copyists with personal interests in the lexical disposition of the text.
RESPONSE: Ehrman never uses the word lexicon or lexical in his book, not once, so what do you mean?
YOU WROTE: In fact, many of the changes found in the early Christian manuscripts had nothing to do with theology or ideology.
RESPONSE: How do you know? What are your sources? It can’t be Ehrman, he is an established misrepresenter of the truth.
YOU WROTE: Most changes are, by far, the pure and simple result of mistakes, such as slips of the feather pen, accidental omissions, unnoticed additions, and such nonsense.
RESPONSE: How do you know? Do you have any examples, can you cite some reputable sources that are actually textual scholars?
YOU WROTE: I think this is because most of them seem to be inefficient or let´s say unqualified scribes. I don´t know, perhaps some of them were often tired or bored.
RESPONSE: You are definitely wrong and if Ehrman is your only source, he is wrong too. How do you know? What examples do you have, what are your sources?
YOU WROTE: Well, the question is whether copyists and scribes (whatever you want to call) actually changed the texts for theological reasons. Did they changed it for theological reasons? If so, why and for what purpose? What are the strong evidence for it?
RESPONSE: Yes, what is the strong evidence for this? When you are dealing with 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts (140 papyri, 323 majuscules, 2,951 minuscules, and 2,484 lectionaries) that have been cataloged, over 9,284 versions, and over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, not to mention an innumerable amount of church fathers’ quotations, giving one example is not going to get it. It would be like a Presidential survey where one person is surveyed.
So, what is your answer to the above claims? For example, do you have any colophons at the end of a Greek manuscript where a scribe said he was bored? It might be best to deal with one of these at a time.
P.S., when you cite a source, name of the author, the book, and page number, please. When you say you have manuscript evidence, what are the manuscripts? What representation are they of the whole? Is it an investigation of one papyrus manuscript, several papyri, a majuscule manuscript, minuscule? If your source is saying something, are their and dissenting voices?
It is like I tell you that America has 14% black population and the American prison system is made up of 70% black population. It looks bad, doesn’t it? But I left out the fact that a Black offender is five more times likely to go to prison for the same offense as a white offender, who usually gets probation.
That still looks bad.
Coimbra1982 I’m not sure you appreciate the problem. Christians claim that the New Testament is a special category of literature, inspired by God in some sense, even inerrant, scripture. Prof Ehrman acknowledges that most of the textual variations are not even reproduceable in translation. But why would God inspired scripture have any textual variations at all? If God inspired the scripture why did he fall down on the job of actually preserving it? If we don’t have the original autographs what difference does it make how special they were? The NT winds up looking a lot like all the other surviving ancient literature.
Robert said
Coimbra1982 said
I know a decent christian scholar who is in fact the CEO and president of Christian Publishing House. He´s name is Edward D. Andrews and …Edward Andrews. Was he the plagiarist or the one being plagiarized? ** you do not have permission to see this link **
NOTE: Ehrman lies, misrepresents, misleads, and misinforms. … It can’t be Ehrman, he is an established misrepresenter of the truth.
If he is a decent Christian scholar, perhaps he should engage Bart in proper scholarly discourse, eg, at the Society for Biblical Literature or in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Robert,
Yes, that´s him and I have also mentioned to him about the idea of trying to engage Bart in a proper scholarly conversation or debate.
Stephen said
Coimbra1982 I’m not sure you appreciate the problem. Christians claim that the New Testament is a special category of literature, inspired by God in some sense, even inerrant, scripture. Prof Ehrman acknowledges that most of the textual variations are not even reproduceable in translation. But why would God inspired scripture have any textual variations at all? If God inspired the scripture why did he fall down on the job of actually preserving it? If we don’t have the original autographs what difference does it make how special they were? The NT winds up looking a lot like all the other surviving ancient literature.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for sharing your point which I find it to be a very good one.
I believe that in some sense that scribes and copyists were inspired by God (Still… I Do not hold the belief of inerrancy), and I wouldn´t go that way by blaming God directly for all the textual variations that came up to be known throught the years and so on. As prof. Ehrman categorically explains that most of those discrepancies are just misspellings and word/letter omissions anyway, they are of little consequence…people in the ancient world couldn’t spell (“anymore than people can today”, says Bart Ehrman)…sometimes people will leave out a line, a paragraph, even a whole page…try copying things down by hand, you’ll see how quickly you’ll start doing that too…they used to make us copy lines at school for punishment, etc…you might eventually leave out a line, of course, haha some of the students would do it on purpose to have less to copy…
The point being we don’t know without conjecture and extrapolation how the final products blossomed into existence over extended periods of time, in multiple streams of repetitive reproduction.
I think that in the end I wouldn’t call it Theological or ideological but there are many obvious intentional changes. Most of which I would call editorial, commentary, expository primarily speaking. Secondarily, I would say some of these have theological results or motivation
The point being we don’t know without conjecture and extrapolation how the final products blossomed into existence over extended periods of time, in multiple streams of repetitive reproduction.
Precisely. So what happens to the concept of divine revelation? Seems to me we can’t both establish the authority of scripture and undermine it at the same time.
Stephen said
The point being we don’t know without conjecture and extrapolation how the final products blossomed into existence over extended periods of time, in multiple streams of repetitive reproduction.Precisely. So what happens to the concept of divine revelation? Seems to me we can’t both establish the authority of scripture and undermine it at the same time.
Perhaps we can´t.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)