Loading...In yesterday’s post I mentioned some of the kinds of “external” evidence that textual scholars look at when trying to establish the “original” text of a document (that is, the wording of the text as the author originally wrote it) when different manuscripts have different wordings for this or that passage. In this post I’ll talk about one kind of “internal” evidence that is used to assist in making this kind of decision.
There are two kinds of internal evidence that are usually called (1) intrinsic probabilities and (2) transcriptional probabilities. For now, I’ll focus on the first.
Intrinsic probabilities involve determining which of two (or more) forms of the text found in the manuscripts is the one that the author himself was more likely to have written. Suppose you have a verse worded in two different ways. If one of the ways uses the vocabulary and the writing style found elsewhere in the author, and presents ideas that he otherwise attests, whereas the other way includes words and grammatical constructions and ideas that are alien to the author, then the first is obviously more likely (though not certainly) the thing he wrote.
To determine such things requires the critic to have an intimate knowledge of the author’s work – his vocabulary, grammatical style, and theology (ideas). And that requires exegesis – the literary interpretation of the author’s work. That’s why to be a decent textual critic a scholar has to be expert in exegesis.
I’ll give just one example. The first article I ever published…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE!!!
Again, good and very interesting material, Dr. E.
Do you think the scribe was ignorant of what he was doing as far as adding this verse into the “passionless Passion”? Or was he in fact trying to add some passion to it intentionally because he knew it was already lacking? I realize you can’t crawl in his head, but are there educated guesses?
See today’s post!
There seems to be a third aspect which I’m gleaning from reading your inspirational journey … motive(s). I’ve found your defining “motives” truly intriguing. Why would the scribe have inserted this particular passage?
See today’s post!
Prof Ehrman
I’m fascinated by the uses to which the writers of Luke and Matthew put the Gospel of Mark. They obviously privileged the text in some way but they didn’t privilege it to the point where they weren’t willing to edit and adapt it to their own ends. They just as obviously didn’t view the text of Mark as inerrent scripture.
Is there a classic work (or works) on this subject that you would recommend?
I would enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject of what we can glean about Luke’s and Matthew’s view of Mark from they way they used his text.
Thanks
For a brief treatment, you might look at my textbook The New Testament: A Historical…. (chapters on Matthew and Luke). Each chapter gives bibliography for further study.
We’re obligated to say, that’s a good catch. You didn’t happen to mention the dissenters’ argument to the co-authored article. Were there any good counter-arguments?
Second, do any of the Bibles footnote this oddity?
We wouldn’t want Bible societies to go through all the trouble of getting the Greek right but missing the exegesis / textual criticism.
I deal with detractors in my book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, where I devote a section to this variant. Yes, Bible’s regularly footnote the problem; the NRSV puts the passage in double brackets [[ ]] indicating that the translators do not think it is original.
You really should see the translators’ notes in the otherwise decent “New English Translation”, the “NET Bible” — fully available online. Really mind-boggling. They suggest that while the excerpt is not likely an authentic Lukan writing, it is probably historical anyway therefore they’ve left it in the text in a bracketed presentation. From the commentary:
“Several important Greek mss (Ì75 א1 A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack 22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Matt 26:39 by Ë13. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א*,2 D L Θ Ψ 0171 Ë1 Ï lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of mss mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe’s assessment of the verses as inauthentic. At the same time, these verses generally fit Luke’s style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these words here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets.”
Yikes.
Wow. “… very likely…” As to “no obvious reason,” well, hmm… Except for the obvious reason I suppose….
These translators’ notes would be a fine example of what we would call “motivated reasoning”.
Even if this event of Jesus sweating, as it were, great drops of blood was in the original manuscript, one must wonder how the author knew of it. Luke 22:41 tells us that Jesus left his disciples and went off on his own to pray. Then, after his agony and the angelic assistance, he rises up and goes back to his disciples only to find them sleeping (v.45).
And, according to V.46, “while he was yet speaking” he was betrayed by Judas and arrested. How then, did the author know what had happened? When I was a believer, such questions never occurred to me. They do now. A lot.
Good point. Maybe I’ll post on this issue.
I’m guessing a believer’s reply to this would be that Jesus told his disciples about it while he was wth them after the Resurrection. That’s also the only way they could explain knowing things about his trials by the Sanhedrin and by Pilate. *Discrepancies* would have to be attributed to different disciples’ having remembered different details as being important.
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” Paul
“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Gamaliel
Gamaliel may have informed the disciples of a great many things. Perhaps he was the one who observed and overheard Christ in his passion from a distance.
Please do, Bart!
“How then, did the author know what had happened?” david
He wasn’t asleep.
This is fascinating! Given a belief at the outset that Jesus was important, I can readily understand some scholars’ being willing to devote their lives to studying problems like these.
“Given a belief at the outset that Jesus was important,…” wilusa
He was important whether it is believed by anyone at any point in time
I agree that he was important – but only, in my opinion, because of things that happened after his death, which he hadn’t foreseen and probably wouldn’t have approved.
What things do you agree did happen after his death that he did foresee?
I think he may have predicted the destruction of the temple.
I doubt anything happened after his death that he had foreseen. I’m guessing he died still believing God would intervene in history within the next few years and bring about His Kingdom. I think he would have been very confused by his own fate, and what its consequences would be, since he’d thought he was the Messiah. But he would almost certainly have believed he’d be resurrected as part of the “general” resurrection, whenever that might come.
I think he may have predicted the destruction of the temple. Dr Bart
Based on what?
Read my book.
Wilusa October 20, 2014
“I agree that he was important – but only, in my opinion, because of things that happened after his death, which he hadn’t foreseen and probably wouldn’t have approved.
I doubt anything happened after his death that he had foreseen. I’m guessing he died still believing God would intervene in history within the next few years and bring about His Kingdom. I think he would have been very confused by his own fate, and what its consequences would be, since he’d thought he was the Messiah. But he would almost certainly have believed he’d be resurrected as part of the “general” resurrection, whenever that might come.”
Why do you think Jesus believed God was going to intervene in history to bring about his kingdom? How do you know he thought he was the messiah?
Side Comment: When you structure your blogs like a “who done it” and “why” (why DID the scribe insert this particular story?), it’s fun !
“The point is that Luke appears intent on removing any reference to Jesus grieving deeply in the face of death.” Dr. Bart
When was Christ unaware of his impending death?
“And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,” Luke
He was weeping for the city, not for his fate.
His fate was tied up in the fate of his beloved, the ones he chose and from whom he emerged. Just pause a moment and think–who in the world would dream up putting in this little aside about his broken heart for these folks? Some (okay many, many many in fact) depictions of this guy are so human, so real and tender and touching that they just about have to be true– on their face. It is almost too crass, too cynical, too inhumane to overanalyze them. They speak for themselves. If these various “human interest” descriptions of him crying and bleeding and moaning and referring john to his mother, ad infinitum, are the work of someone trying to create an impression not based on what actually occurred, she wins. I’ll bite the bullet merely because of her unequalled genius. you know? Good job whoever you were. You sure fooled me.
Reminds me of Yul Brynner, Ingrid Bergman and Helen Hayes
Remember the scene in Anastasia– when she coughs as she’s leaving the room and Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna hears her, and inquires if she’s alright? I cough when I’m frightened. Ever since I was a little girl. Boom! the scales of loneliness, bitterness, cold-heartedness drop like a rock and she sees her granddaughter whom she thought was dead.
“But the passage (both verses) is absent from some of our oldest and best manuscripts.” Dr. Bart
“Which makes them not some of the best manuscripts” is another way to describe those particular manuscripts which omitted them?
Included in these:
Codex Sinaiticus*, 2, D, Codex Laudianus, Codex Seidelianus I, Codex Seidelianus II, Cyprius, Regius, Codex Campianus, Guelferbytanus B, Codex Sinopensis, Codex Nanianus, Codex Monacensis, Δ*, Codex Tischendorfianus III, Codex Athous Lavrensis, Uncial 0171, f1, 174, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071mg, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, (ℓ 184, ℓ 211, Byz, it, vg, syrcur, syrh, syrp, syrpal, Armenian and Ethiopian manuscripts, Diatessaron.
I discuss which manuscripts have it and which do not have it in my treatment in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. It’s especially striking that it is absent from P75 and B (Vaticanus), widely considered (by just about everyone) to be our best manuscripts for Luke.
If you think the verses were originally in Luke, you’d have to explain why scribes left them out. I think I’ve considered all the options, and presented most of them. Look at my fuller discussion.
“If you think the verses were originally in Luke, you’d have to explain why scribes left them out. I think I’ve considered all the options, and presented most of them. Look at my fuller discussion.” Dr Bart
Doc, is the following statement as legitimate as yours? If you think that none of the words Jesus spoke is included in John’s gospel, you need to explain why the scribes omitted them.?
I don’t think so. Which words in John are you thinking of that scribes omitted?
I’d suggest your read up on textual criticism, and you’ll see what I mean. The standard treatment is still Bruce Metzger, The Text of the NT.
“Establishing what an author wrote is an indispensible first step to determining what he or she meant. Within the pages of the New Testament there are textual variations that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved”
in your opinion?
“and that have profound effects, not just on a word here or there, but on the entire meaning of entire books and their portrayals of Jesus”
disagree
“e.g., the angry Jesus of Mark,”
he’s angry throughout his life
” the imperturbable Jesus of Luke”
that is silly, no offense
“and the forsaken Jesus of Hebrews.”
Dr. Bart, that just isn’t true.
“These textual problems cannot simply be swept under the table and ignored. Commentators, interpreters, preachers, and general readers of the Bible must recognize their existence and realize the stakes involved in solving them.”
nothing you describe perverts the meaning of the scriptures. For example, say the original wording in the disputed Hebrews passage, as you carefully reason, described Christ alone or apart from god as he died, rather than thru grace. jesus said, “why have you forsaken me?” The concept that Christ died apart from god is a good one. he most certainly did, at least in a sense he did.
62. But there is far more to the textual tradition of the New Testament than merely establishing what its authors actually wrote. There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings. This question of the modification of Scripture in the early Christian church will be the subject of my next lecture, as I try to show how scribes who were not altogether satisfied with what the New Testament books said modified their words, to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose Jews, pagans, heretics, and women.
I have wondered about most of the accounts of the gospel writers myself. If only 10% of people (mostly men) were able to read, and even fewer able to write, and therefore no one followed Jesus around recording everything he said and did, then all that activity and words came from the oral tradition of which reliability is always very questionable. .
Yup, that’s my next book.
“I have wondered about most of the accounts of the gospel writers myself. If only 10% of people (mostly men) were able to read, and even fewer able to write, and therefore…” no one followed him around?
“no one followed Jesus around recording everything he said and did…” you know this how?
“then all that activity and words came from the oral tradition of which reliability is always very questionable.” Illogical
Hematohidrosis is a very rare condition of sweating blood. A case of hematohidrosis is reported. There are only few reports in the literature. Hematohidrosis is a rare condition in which a human being sweats blood. Leonardo Da Vinci described a soldier who sweated blood before battle.
I’m not sure it’s ever been scientifically documented — but I simply don’t know. But in any event, the point here is that Jesus is not said to be sweating blood. His sweat is falling “as if they were drops of blood.”
Good morning Bart,
On the topic of the Garden, I’m curious: in Luke there’s a portion where Jesus seems to try and, I can’t think of a great way to say it, but get out of dying as a sacrifice. “Let this cup pass from me”.
I’m curious, do scholars think Jesus said this as it feels like this would maybe pass the criterion of dissimilarity (could be wildly wrong there)? If it was the case though, I imagine that would in some way affirm Jesus knew he was going to be killed? I’m curious if you have a post you can point me towards on this or have thoughts on what’s occurring here.
Thank you!
My sense is that scholars generally think that Christians were comforted that Jesus himself had doubts about why he had to suffer, and yet God had it all under control and was guiding what was happening. This provided assurance for them — those telling and hearing the story — about their own lives. So I don’t think it’s necessarily a tale that could not have been “made up” (In any event, we certainly would have no way of knowing what Jesus said, let alone thought, immediately before his arrest)