(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I started to explain how the manuscripts of the New Testament can help us reconstruct not only the “original” texts that the author wrote but also, when looked at in a different way, what was happening in the worlds of the scribes who changed them. In this post I deal with the one part of that context that is best known today, scribes changing the text for theological reasons. In my next post I’ll get to the issue that started this small thread, changes of the text made in opposition to Jews and Judaism. This again is from my essay “The Text as Window,” in the collection of essays Mike Holmes and I edited, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.
(This post is a bit longer than usual; if you want to cut it in half, you have my permission, indeed, my suggestion, not to read the footnotes. It was written for scholars, who like nothing better than footnotes….)
******************************
- The Internecine Struggles of Early Christianity
Arguably the most significant study of early Christianity in modern times is Walter Bauer’s 1934 classic, Rechtglaübigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum.[i] The book has forced a rethinking of the nature of ideological disputes in Christian antiquity, as even scholars not persuaded by Bauer’s view have had to contend with it. Bauer’s thesis is that, contrary to the traditional claims of Christian apologists, “orthodoxy” was not an original and universally dominant form of Christianity in the second and third centuries, with “heresy” (in its multiple configurations) a distant and derivative second. Instead, early Christianity comprised a number of competing forms of belief and practice, one of which eventually attained dominance for a variety of social, economic, and political reasons. The victorious “orthodoxy” then rewrote the history of the church in the light of its final triumph. This orthodoxy was the form of the religion embraced by the faithful in Rome.
While many of the details remain in serious dispute, and demurrals appear to be on the rise, Bauer’s overarching conception continues to exert a wide influence, as does his insistence on the centrality of these ideological disputes to the early history of Christianity.[ii] What, though, do they have to do with the MS tradition of the NT?
For many critics of the twentieth century the answer had been unequivocal: nothing at all. In part this view has been based on
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!
Despite its popularity, this view has never held universal sway. Even before World War II, individual scholars had isolated and discussed instances of theologically motivated corruption, with such eminent names as Kirsopp Lake, J. Rendell Harris, Adolph von Harnack, Donald Riddle, and, most extensively, Walter Bauer himself (in another, less-read but equally impressive, monograph), topping the list.[vi]
Nonetheless, only since the 1960s have scholars begun to recognize the full extent to which early ideological conflicts affected the NT text. By all accounts, the impetus was provided by Eldon Jay Epp’s groundbreaking study, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, a study whose particular conclusions relate more to Jewish-Christian relations (discussed below) than to the internecine conflicts of the early Christian movement.[vii] Nonetheless, Epp attacked the Hortian view head-on by pursuing the suggestion that some of the tendencies of the so-called Western text, as embedded in Codex Bezae, should be explained by the theological proclivities of its scribe.[viii] Through a detailed and exhaustive analysis, Epp concluded that some 40 percent of Codex Bezae’s variant readings in Acts point toward an anti-Judaic bias. The sensible inference is that the scribe himself, or his tradition, was anti-Jewish (in some way), and that this prejudice came to be embodied in the transcription of the text.[ix]
Although Epp’s study has been widely acclaimed and his conclusions widely accepted, his lead has been little followed.[x] Codex Bezae is singularly suited to this kind of study, given the extraordinary character of its text of Acts; most other MSS lack such distinctiveness.[xi] Subsequent analyses of theological tendencies have therefore moved from the study of a specific MS to a panoramic view of the surviving witnesses. Among recent scholars to pursue such a line are Alexander Globe, Mark A. Plunkett, Mikeal Parsons, and Peter Head.[xii] My own work in this area has eventuated in the first full-length analysis, entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.[xiii] The study examines one area of ideological conflict – the christological controversies of the second and third centuries – and shows how it affected a number of textual witnesses produced in the period.[xiv] While no one would claim that theological controversies caused the majority of the hundreds of thousands of textual variants, they clearly engendered several hundred. Nor are these variant readings, taken as a whole, of little consequence. To the contrary, many prove to be critical for questions relating to NT exegesis and theology.[xv]
Of yet greater significance for the present essay, the study raises a number of issues concerning the relation of the MSS to the social world of the scribes who produced them, a world about which we are poorly informed by the other surviving sources.[xvi] For one thing, the textual data reveal the doctrinal proclivities of these scribes: their tendencies are uniformly proto-orthodox[xvii] — suggesting that the victors not only write the history but also reproduce (and preserve) the texts. Moreover, the proto-orthodox modifications of these texts demonstrate that the doctrinal and ideological issues involved were of concern not only to a handful of Christian intellectuals, the heresiological literati whose works happen to have outlived antiquity. They affected others as well — at least the scribes, who, while themselves among the intellectually advantaged (to the extent that they could read and write, unlike the vast majority of Christians; see below), were by no means at the top of the social scale even within Christian circles. These debates appear to have affected the rank and file as well as the Christian elite.
In addition, the textual data confirm that these struggles were, in part, directly related to divergent interpretations of early Christian texts, in an age before there was a hard-and-fast canon of Scripture – a finding that is significant not only for the nature of the emerging religion in se but also in its relation to other religions of the period: no other cult of the empire, with the partial exception of Judaism, shared this fixation on written texts and the doctrinal ideas they convey.[xviii] The theological modification of these documents thus further demonstrates the concern for literary texts that is attested generally throughout the second and third Christian centuries: “official” Christianity had already begun to attach special importance to the written word and to the propositional “truths” that it contains.
[i] Bauer, Rechtglaübigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (BHT 10; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]). ET of the 2d ed. (1964, ed. Georg Strecker): Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, (trans. Paul J. Achtemeier et al.; ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971)
[ii] For a useful discussion of its initial reception, see Georg Strecker’s essay, “Die Aufnahme des Buches,” 288-306 in the 2d German ed., expanded and revised by Robert Kraft, “The Reception of the Book,” Appendix 2, pp. 286-316. The discussion was updated by Daniel Harrington, “The Reception of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity During the Last Decade, ” HTR 73 (1980) 289-98. For additional bibliography, see the discussion in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 33n.16.
[iii] Hort, Introduction, 282. Hort specifies Marcion as the one exception to this rule, and goes on to say that non-Marcionite instances of variation that appear to be doctrinally motivated are due to scribal carelessness or laxity, not to malicious intent.
[iv] Bludau, Die Schriftfälschungen der Häretiker: Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik der Bibel (NTAbh 11; Münster: Aschendorf, 1925).
[v] For an assessment, see my Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 43n.100.
[vi] See, e.g., Kirsopp Lake, The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Exegesis of the New Testament (Oxford: Parker & Son, 1904); J. Rendel Harris, “New Points of View in Textual Criticism,” Expositor, 8th ser., 7 (1914) 316-34; idem, “Was the Diatesseron Anti-Judaic?” HTR 18 (1925) 103-9; Adolph von Harnack, “Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften Johannes,” in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche, vol. 1: Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931) 115-27; idem, “Zwei alte dogmatische Korrekturen im Hebräerbrief,” in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments 1.235-52; Donald Wayne Riddle, “Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline,” ATR 18 (1936) 220-33; and Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1907; reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967).
[vii] Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). For Epp’s predecessors, see his discussion on pp. 12-26.
[viii] A suggestion made earlier, for example, by P. H. Menoud, “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts,” Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Bulletin 2 (1951) 27-28.
[ix] A conclusion that Epp himself does not draw, as pointed out below.
[x] That is, for other MSS. On Codex Bezae itself, see, among the many studies, the unpublished dissertations by George E. Rice (“The Alteration of Luke’s Tradition by the Textual Variants in Codex Bezae,” Case Western Reserve University, 1974) and Michael W. Holmes (“Early Editorial Activity and the Text of Codex Bezae in Matthew,” Princeton Theological Seminary, 1984). For a reappraisal of the matter with respect to Acts, see C. K. Barrett, “Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae?” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (ed. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 15-27.
[xi] As is commonly observed, the text of Acts in Codex Bezae is approximately 8 1/2% longer than that found among the Alexandrian witnesses.
[xii] Alexander Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2 and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” CBQ 42 (1980) 52-72; Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44,” CBQ 45 (1983) 401-16; Mikeal Parsons, “A Christological Tendency in P75, JBL 105 (1986) 463-79; Peter M. Head, “Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels,” NovT 35 (1993) 107-29.
[xiii] See n. 5 above. Among my briefer studies of individual passages are the following: “1 John 4.3 and the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” ZNW 79 (1988) 221-43; “The Cup, the Bread, and the Salvific Effect of Jesus’ Death in Luke-Acts,” SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 576-91; “Text of Mark”; and (with Mark A. Plunkett), “The Angel and the Agony.” Of book-length treatments that take a slightly different tack, in addition to Bauer, Leben Jesu, reference should esp. be made to Eric Fascher, Textgeschichte als hermeneutische Problem (Halle: Niemeyer, 1953).
[xiv] I did not, of course, restrict myself to documents produced in this period, of which few remain, but to readings that could be shown to have been generated then, even when these survive only in later witnesses. For my rationale, see Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 28-29.
[xv] The interpretation of significant passages is sometimes affected by the textual decision. Just within the Gospels, reference can be made to the prologue of John (e.g., 1: 18), the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke (e.g., Matt 1: 16, 18; Luke 1:35), the baptism accounts (e.g., Mark 1: 10; Luke 3:22; John 1:34), and the various passion narratives (e.g., Mark 15:34; Luke 22:43-44; John 19:36). Moreover, a number of variants affect a range of issues that continue to interest historians and exegetes of the NT, including such questions as whether the Gospels could have been used to support either an “adoptionistic” Christology (e.g., Mark 1:1; Luke 3:22; John 1:34) or one that was “antidocetic” (e.g., the Western noninterpolations), whether Luke has a doctrine of the atonement (e.g., Luke 22:19-20), whether members of the Johannine community embraced a gnostic Christology (e.g., I John 4:3), and whether any of the authors of the NT characterizes Jesus as “God” (e.g., Heb 1:8).
[xvi] See the fuller discussion in my Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 274-83.
[xvii] I use the term “proto-orthodox” to designate Christians of the ante-Nicene age who advocated views similar to those that at a later period came to dominate Christendom at large. These second- and third-century Christians were embraced by the “orthodox” of the 4th century as their own theological forebears and as reliable tradents of the apostolic tradition. See my fuller discussion in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 12-13.
[xviii] See my Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 279.
Has anyone attempted a visual representation of the early church and its various factions? Like a flowchart, or family tree. Starting with Jesus, then perhaps you had those who followed his teachings versus those who concentrated on his death and reported resurrection. Paul and possibly others reach out to the Gentile world. Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, etc. It would be nice to see these groups laid out in visual form with their approximate dates and locations when known. Better yet to have the texts associated with these groups noted as well.
None that I’ve seen! It might be tricky since there would be so much overlap and even (way) more uncertainties…
I’ve been listening to your lectures on Wondrium. I’m currently listening to The Historical Jesus. Which of your books would you recommend as a ’written version’ of the lecture? Jesus • Apocalyptic Prophet? There is a lot of great information, I’d like to have a written text as well.
Thanks for your time! Andrea
Yup, that would be the one!
Combs writes “It was once commonplace to describe such alterations as “scribal”; e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Although the role of scribes should not be entirely discounted, I acknowledge with David Parker that most intentional alteration of the text likely did not occur during the scribal work of copying the text” (TC 2021).
If those in authority made deliberate changes to the text, we should expect those changes often to concern the issue of who should have authority. This is what we find. Indeed, the Pastoral Epistles are themselves large interpolations that deal with the authority question. If those other than copyists added text (e.g. from another ms) to the margin, we would expect to find this text incorporated by the next copyist in new locations from time to time. Again, this is what we see.
In the letters of Paul, at least, there are few deliberate changes, in my assessment. But there are some important ones.
I’m not sure what that means (is this Jason Combs, my student?). If intentional alteration wasn’t the work of scribes copying the text, what was it?
You wrote, “I’m not sure what that means (is this Jason Combs, my student?). If intentional alteration wasn’t the work of scribes copying the text, what was it?”
Yes, Jason Combs. As I have mentioned to you before, many people with access to a manuscript could erase words or add supra linear words or add words to the margin. Owners of manuscripts (bishops?), in particular, would have the authority to make changes. I doubt that copyists would have been empowered by the owners to make their own changes.
I don’t know of any owners of manuscripts providing powers of any kind to copyists. What are you imagining?
You wrote “I don’t know of any owners of manuscripts providing powers of any kind to copyists. What are you imagining?” I do not know why you are asking this. I am suggesting that the copyists were NOT empowered by the owners to make changes. I don’t see anything ambiguous in my two comments or in the statement of Combs that I quoted, so all I can do is ask you to reread them.
If I could read I wouldn’t have to have students like Jason Combs help me out!
Hi Bart, do you think reconstruction of the original manuscript is possible? this can be understood in the book “the orthodox corruption of scripture”. In misquoting Jesus you mention the opposite. Is there a consensus among scholars today that there can be no question of a reconstruction of the original? Thank you:)
No, I don’t. I never did say that it was possible in Orthodox Corruption, though I can see why people might read me that way. I did talk about the “corruption” of the “original” text, but I did so only in very specific instances where I argued that a later change had altered the earliest form of the text. I probably could have said that it was a corruption of “the earlier form of the text known to the scribe,” but I thought that was way too wordy and so used the shorthand “original.” But even more important, I meant, in every case, what was probably the original reading for *that particular* textual variant. E.g., (an example I didn’t cite there) I’m pretty sure that Mark “originally” wrote that Jesus was “angry” not “compassionate” in Mark 1:42. But I have never ever said or thought (over the past, say 45 years!) that the original copy of the entire Gospel of Mark could be reconstructed. We can probably know pretty well what the original was for a *lot* of the words of Mark, but there’s no way we can reconstruct the entire Gospel in its original form (i.e., “the original manuscript”). (And it’s entirely possible that our probable reconstruction of those “lots” of words is wrong too. That’s why it’s just probable)
Hello Bart. Can you share with us where you stand on Bauer’s thesis?
I think he was completely right in the very broad scope of his views: earliest Christianity was remarkably diverse; in many locations the “original” form of Christianity was a form later deemed heretical; proto-orthodoxy was not the majority everywhere and certainly presented doctrines not taught by Jesus and / or his disciples; the “triumph” of this form of Xty was due not to its antiquity or permanent majority standing but to specifiable social and cultural factors; and so on. That said, I think the *specifics* of his arguments are often simply not right, as we now know from further discoveries research. But other specifics have appeared that have take their places and they all seem to point in the same direction. (As one example: it is often not fully appreciated or realized as significant that virtually EVERY time a “new” Gospel or other Xn book is discovered — i.e. one we didn’t know of before — it’s one that would later have been deemed *heretical*. Why aren’t there any *orthodox* Gospels being discovered? (Most recently: Gospel of Judas)
What were these social and cultural factors that contributed to the triumph of Orthodox Christianity?
IN his argument the Roman church was large, wealthy, and located at the center of power, and it used its administrative skill (trickled down from the imperium) money, and influence to urge other Xn communities, already in the first century, to adopt its form of belief. By the time Constantine converted, of course, this would have been “Roman” Christianity.
IN his argument the Roman church was large, wealthy, and located at the center of power, and it used its administrative skill (trickled down from the imperium) money, and influence to urge other Xn communities, already in the first century, to adopt its form of belief. By the time Constantine converted, of course, this would have been “Roman” Christianity.
Many thanks.
No idea where you find the time. I see you in your podcasts then across other channels the same day! Hopefully you’ll manage that pace for some time yet. And hopefully you’ll have time to help me with this question. It’s about authors/scribes and it’s been bugging me for a while.
The end of John says it contains the teachings of “the disciple Jesus loved” and “WE believe that HIS testimony is true”. Does the “we” indicate a group of people gathered John’s teachings together and created the Gospel of John? If so, it could explain the huge number of times the gospel boasts how John was ‘THE’ disciple Jesus loved. Even when Jesus’ mother is standing there it says – here comes Jesus’ mum and the disciple he actually loved (I’m paraphrasing.) To me it’s over-the-top adoration. But if the book was produced by students of John’s that adored him, then it would make sense. Jealous of the attention Peter was getting, they add all the bits about how much John was loved by Jesus. Or is that ending something to do with how scribes end a book they’ve taken in dictation? Or is that ending a mistranslation?
Certainly had time for the Superbowl!
Yes, it’s often thought that the author is referring to the people in his community; and often it is thought the community was founded by this unnamed disciple. I’ve never been so sure myself; it’s really an extrapolation than something indicated in the Gospel.
Got it. The author talking on behalf of their community, not the community verifiying the contents. Thank you. But on the forum someone has also said that chapter was a late addition so turns out it might not be any help with the question anyway. It’s just really odd though. Why develop such a concept in the first place? A person who Jesus loved more than others? When that person and Jesus’ mum are stood next to each other, the gospel only mentions the other person is ‘loved’. That seems way over the top! What purpose does it serve to regularly remind readers that there is someone Jesus loves more than anyone else and pedastal him as the greatest disciple, constantly outdoing Peter? There’s too much of it to have no meaning. It’s bugging me. John counts the days and hours between each event, we get the units of everything, and he skips so many important features like last supper, transfiguration, exorcisms – even making the baptism ‘hearsay’. So why this consistent, insistent repetition of “THE disciple Jesus loved”? Help me Bart. You’re my only hope.
It’s often thought that this unnamed disciple founded the community behind the Gospel of John, and they revered him as Jesus’ favorite. There are, as you might imagine, lots of suggestions about his identity. He can’t be Peter! Other than that, of course, People suggest John, Lazarus, or Mary Magdalene (!) (I don’t see how it can be Mary despite wishful thinking by moderns; the disciple is described as male). Others think it is a fictitious character meant to be a “model” for the readers of what it really means to follow Jesus — for example, to stand at the foot of his cross and support those others who are close to him.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is 1 Cor. 15:3-7 included in P46 and all other quintessential manuscripts per Paul? One scholar (William O. Walker) from the Jesus Seminar said that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 was an interpolation, is there any reason to believe that?
Yes, it’s in all the manuscripts. When he calls it an interpolation he means that it is in all the manuscripts but he thinks it was added after Paul wrote his letter by someone else (but before any of our surviving manuscripts were produced). That’s typically what someone says (even scholars) when they don’t like or appreciate or understand a passage: The author couldn’t have written it! There are places where that does indeed appear to be the case inthe NT, but it’s very hard indeed to make the argument in this case.
Dr Ehrman, have there been any new significant ancient Biblical mss fragments found in the last decade or so? By ancient I mean the oldest or near oldest of any Bible book (or even Septuagint). Is there a source that has a pretty up-to-date list of oldest mss fragments and first complete copies of every NT book?
The list is kept by the Instute for New Testament Textual Research in Munster Germany; you can look them up online. There have been som einteresting publicatoins including small fragments of Mark and Luke from the late second or early third century. They don’t really tell us much of anything we didn’t already know (and they were discovered long ago, just not published till recently)
I would like to express some thoughts concerning the lectures you have uploaded on your YouTube channel. I recently discovered it, and I must say I have found great value in it. Although I am the least qualified to make such remarks, please allow me to say that your knowledge of the Scripture, of related materials and of ancient history, combined with your public speaking skills, make for a thoroughly captivating viewing experience. I humbly wish to express my gratitude for the knowledge you share and the way you have chosen to share it.
However, I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have some disagreements with your perspective. I say this with the utmost respect, being fully aware that your knowledge of the subject is incomparably greater than mine. And yet I cannot fathom some of the points you make. My disagreements are purely secular and academic, since I am an agnosti. It does not interest me to defend Christianity; I only care for the accurate representation of the subject matter. I have left several comments on your videos expressing my contention (under the username “@hank_poole_”) and have also sent you an email.
I would appreciate your perspective.
Thank you.
I’m afraid I can’t reply to emails (no time; can barely answer these blog posts and still have time to party hard every night…). But if you want to tell me some of your differences, maybe just 2-3 per comment, I can certainly reply to them here.
It’s never stated in Genesis that God strolled through Eden in human form. We are not told in what form he strolled, and we can’t assume for certain that it was human, especially given the great variance of appearances of supernatural beings in the Bible.
Genesis Chapter 6 doesn’t state that the sons of God looked down from heaven on earth and saw the daughters of men etc. The text says simply that they saw the daughters of men etc. There’s absolutely nothing to suggest that these “sons of God” were in some sense in heaven and then came down to earth for the daughters of men.
Chapter 6 doesn’t state that God decided to destroy the world due to the offspring of these sons of God and these daughters of men. While God does express some concern about “these humans” (it’s unclear who he’s referring to), this does not lead him to decide to destroy the world. What is stated is that, due to the wickedness of humans (not necessarily humans born of the sons of God and the daughters of men but humans in general), God decides to wipe out all living beings, because he’s had a change of heart.
Given what we know about other appearances of God or other divine beings on earth, it’s hard to imagine what other form he was strolling through the garden in. Also, elsewhere in teh Bible and other Jewish literature the sons of God are members of his divine court, up in heaven. That’s certainly how Gen. 6 was read by Jewish authors later, as well (2 Enoch).
There’s no official and/or reliable documentation to show that Constantine claimed he saw the words “(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα” (English: “in this win”, meaning “by this sign, win ye”) in the sky. It was two Christian writers (we could consider them historians if we don’t raise the bar too high) of the time that described the event, and they present somewhat different versions of it, rendering the account even more implausible than it already is. Additionally, the connection of the apparition to Battle of the Milvian Bridge (I find it reasonable to assume that this is the battle Professor Ehrman refers to) came about later on, the two accounts having been merged into a single narrative.
There is evidence to suggest that it was the very well-respected bishop Hosius, not Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicea, although the emperor certainly supported it. It was also Hosius, not Constantine, who probably presided over it.
Pagan does not mean simply a polytheist. It’s a more complex term, and, generally speaking, it is not based on the distinction between polytheism and monotheism but on whether someone worships the one true God (that is, YHWH, according to those who called the non-believers “pagans”) or not.
The Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas does NOT identify Thomas as the brother of Jesus. It’s the Nag Hammadi Book of Thomas that seems to name Thomas as Jesus’ brother (it’s not absolutely clear that it actually refers to Thomas).
“Man” and “son of man” are not the same word in Aramaic. There’s a word for “man”, a word for “son” and an expression for “son of man”, composed of “son” and “man”. The meaning of “son of man” is not ONLY “man”, especially in the Bible; it is in fact a very nuanced expression, and scholarly debate still hasn’t reached a definite conclusion on what it signifies. There seems to be a broad consensus, however, that it doesn’t have a single/uniform meaning.
Religious dualism did not start with Jewish apocalypticists.
Luke’s passage about the kingdom of God does not translate to “in your midst”. This translation violates the meaning of the words. The verse clearly states “ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν”, which means “is within you”. “[Ἐ]ντὸς” never translates to “in your mist” in Greek. If it does in this case, it is a hapax legomenon. The word has a few other translations but none hold up in this context other than “within”.
1. That’s right. In Syriac Xty, the identity was common. See Acts of Peter. And since The GTh is allegedly written by Jude, Didymus Thomas, the identificaiton appares to be secure. 2. Baranash can mean both man and son of man. 3. That’s absolutely right, and no one would claim otherwise. 4. In the context it almost certainly means “midst”; he’s talking to the *Pharisees*. And “midst” fits perfectly with Luke’s theology. “Within” does not. So that’s why it’s widely understood that way.
There’s nothing in the sermon of the sheep and the goats in Matthew that refers to Jesus admitting into heaven those who have never even heard of him, just because of good deeds. In the text, the righteous state that they never encountered Jesus so as to feed him etc. Then Jesus says that, since they did those things for the least of his brothers, they did them for him. I get that you’re probably trying to note a discrepancy between Paul and Matthew (salvation through faith/deeds), but this parallelism is not accurate, me thinks. I’m not saying that Jesus admitting caring people who have never heard of him into heaven is contrary to the Gospels. I’m just saying that this particular sermon does not say that.
Thomas does not bow before the resurrected Jesus when he proclaims “my Lord and my God”.
In Mark’s account of the son of man being the lord of the sabbath, Jesus didn’t heal anybody. What happened was that his disciples began to make a path through the fields, plucking the heads of grain in those fields. That was considered “work” by the Pharisees, who blamed Jesus for the behaviour of his disciples.
Thanks for this string of comments Hank. I’m not sure what you are meaning to do with them. Are you wanting simply to show that I’ve made mistakes (it sounds kind of like that, not that you’re disagreeing with me but that you want to point out that I don’t know what I’m talkig about) (which in fact has been known to happen!); or are you trying to let everyone *else*know what’s actually the case; or are you wanting me to explain what I said? If the latter, it would be easier if we dealt with one thing at a time. I absolutely say things that are wrong when I make live oral presentations live (is Thomas said to bow when he declared “my Lord and my God” Nope.). I esepcially try to make sure I don’t make mistakes when I publish something (though even then it happens). But for everything else it’s not clear if you are intending to provide corrigenda or if you mean to have a discussion (the latter would only be if you think there is something I could reply. As you can imagine, I disagree with most of your substantive points but am always happy to have a back and forth about interesting issues. But you posted a lot at once and each post has three or more … comments? corrections?). So if there’s something you’d like to discuss, I’m happy to do so, but just one thing at a time.disabledupes{a6b96ade29476d74a498d8e982c77321}disabledupes
Constantine did not generally adhere to what we now consider the Orthodoxy of his time; he was drawn to Arianism. And that despite Nicaea. He was even baptized shortly before his death by an Arianizing bishop.
The “classical” pronounciation of Greek words had shifted during the time of Jesus. So, for instance, “λῃσταί” was not pronounced leh-eh-STEH (btw, it had never been pronounced this way, even in the Attic Dialect, where it had probably been something like “ley-STEH”). During Jesus’ time, it was pronounced “lee-STEH”. Also, the word “tetelestai” (Greek: “τετέλεσται”), pronounced “te-TEH-leh-steh”, was used to denote the full payment of a debt in business transactions. So Jesus/the author might have been alluding to that, meaning that Jesus had then paid the full debt.
There is no indication in the Bible that there exist no angels that are anthropomorphic, so whether the beings present in the empty tomb of Jesus are described as men or as angels (messengers) is not necessarily a contradiction but perhaps a different version of the same thing. Angels could theoretically be like men, in terms of appearanc. Moreover, the phrasing in the Gospels suggests that it’s their function that’s important, their role as messengers, not their anature.
Your assertion that Paul considered Jesus as an angelic being is bizarre. In ancient Greek, “ἄγγελος” means “messenger”. It has that meaning in both the Old (the Septuagint, at least) and the New Testament. In the Bible, angels are messengers of the Lord (of an unclear, ostensibly divine, nature), sometimes carrying out specific duties apart from informing. Jesus may very well be called an angel because he is a messenger from God the Father and has a duty. This is echoed in the theological position, formulated rather early, that Jesus was the so-called “Angel of Great Counsel” (a terminology however not found even once in the Bible). Some even consider that certain appearances of an “Angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament refer to a pre-incarnation God the Son in the role of that Angel of Great Counsel. Point being, Jesus was indeed universally considered as an angel, meaning a messenger and someone with a mission (annointed by God the Father or self-proclaimed).
The oldest complete (more accurately: almost complete) manuscript of the New Testament is generally said to be the Codex Vaticanus, not the Codex Sinaiticus, which was compiled slightly later.
The prayer of forgiveness in Luke is not necessarily a theological paradox considering the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be argued that the destruction of the city was simply due to the revolt of the Jews (unrelated to their disobeyance of God or the rejection/killing of Jesus) or, theologically at least, to their continued disobeyance of God (for instance, not because they actually killed Jesus or rejected him during his lifetime but because they continued to reject Jesus long after his lifetime, after had been “proven” to be the son of God). I know Professor Ehrman argues, at least for some purposes, for the individual reading of every Gospel, not a synoptic (pun indended) one, but I’d like to draw your attention to the Gospel of Matthew. It has been argued that the apocalyptic prophecy of Jesus that people generally perceived to be referring to the end of times was actually a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem due to the comportment of the Jews. The hyperbolic language used (painting images of biblical, so to say, catastrophe) is simply the mode of apocalyptic speaking that was always prevalent in such Jewish prophecies, a poetic exaggeration of sorts.
In the Gospel of James, the incident concerning the hand of Salome does not clearly indicate that she prays to Jesus or that Jesus heals her. She seems to pray vaguely to God, and her hand is healed due to the reverence she shows for God and Jesus but not clearly as an act of Jesus himself. The mediation of an angel telling her to hold the child, who seems to demonstrate no (divine) agency during this incident, further supports that it was God (not Jesus) that healed her due to her reverence (for God and for the child), since otherwise that mediation would have been unnecessary (Jesus would have acted on his own).
Jesus’ response to Pilate in Mark about whether he is the king of the Jews, “[so] you say” is perhaps an ancient expression of emphatic affirmation, similar to “you’re damn right”. Other Gospels use very similar expressions in the same manner. We theorize that Jesus did not mean to avoid answering and in fact meant such statements as affirmations because in other instances during his trial (even in Mark) he answers positively in a very straightforward manner
It is untrue that if eyewitness accounts were reliable we wouldn’t need a legal system. The legal system deals with many more issues than the verification of events. It deals with attribution-imputability, the details of punishment and/or restitution, the means of protection of the defendant and the witnesses, the legal categories of crimes, contracts and persons, inheritance and much more.
The Church of the Nativity is not in Nazareth; it is in Bethlehem.
Not everyone uses the same Greek text of the New Testament (or the Old, for that matter). Perhaps that is the case in the U.S., but certainly not everywhere else.
I’m assuming the female apostle in Paul’s epistles that Professor Ehrman refers to is the one called “Ἰουνίαν”, a hapax legomenon. “Ἰουνίαν” is the ancient Greek accusative case of two possible names, one masculine (“Ἰουνίας”) and one feminine (“Ἰουνία”). In English, (s)he is referred to as “Junia” (female) or “Junias” (male). Most of the evidence points to a female, but there’s also evidence to the contrary. In any even, the text doesn’t clarify which is the case. It’s also unclear from the text that she’s an apostle, although it’s certainly possible, and there’s also some evidence to support that conclusion.
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond, Professor. Once again, thank you for your contribution to the historically sound knowledge of the Bible. I understand you’re a busy person and it’s kind of a shame that a live discussion, with the necessary back and forth, cannot be fully realized, due to the constraints of time and technology. I do wish it was otherwise. Oh well. One is tempted to start a podcast in order to have you as a guest!
I’m very sorry if I came of as pedantic or as a show-off. All the comments I wrote were meant to trigger a discussion, as I already stated, in order for the truth to come out. I pointed out what sounded to me as untrue with the explicit purpose to have the issue resolved. I was, and remain, more than happy to be corrected, in fact that’s what I expected to happen. And you certainly did deliver; you corrected me already on multiple issues, and I’m very glad that those issues were clarified, to the betterment of both me and others that follow your work. I have no interest in showing I can correct you, because that is a very, very remote posibility and I’m well aware of it. The knowledge gap between us is like the chasm that separates the rich man from Lazarus (forgive me, I couldn’t resist that reference)! Plus, internet glory points mean next to nothing, and I see no “gain” from this discussion other than the dissemination of knowledge.
OK, good to know. How ’bout you pick substantive issues and simply raise them one at a time. God knows (well, he would know if he existed) (and maybe he does!) I make lots of mistakes, especially in oral presentations. The Church of the Nativity in Nazareth? Ha! Of course, maybe it should be….
So, the crux, if I may, of the matter is that I just care for the truth to come out, and for amateur mistakes, that someone like me can make by misinterpreting what you have stated, to be dealt with in an academic enviroment (as far as that’s possible given your other engagements). Of course, if you indeed made mistakes, and you acknowledge and correct them, even better; even more things were sorted out! Everybody wins (except those pesky fundamentalists)! There’s nothing hostile about this apporach. I’m no “Ehrmanproject”-ist, trying to make a point where there is none to make. Perhaps it’s due to my academic background (I mean that completely neutrally), where I was given the impression that professors are to be scrutinized, pressured and asked questions, without the learner being suspected of some kind of animosity or irreverence. I would like to do the same wherever I find a similarly welcoming academic environment. The goal is knowledge, not some kind of power struggle. If I came across this way, again, I’m terribly sorry, it’s totally on me.
No apologies necessary! I just wanted to make sure I understood. I think I do. I appreciate your comments. And yeah, the Ehrman Project. What a scream.
I appreciate your approach and thank you for your understanding. I think I’ve talked too much and overstayed my welcome. They say we Greeks are talkative fellows but damn, I’ve suprassed good ole Demosthenes at this point. I am but a learner. So, time to move away from the keyboard and open my ears and eyes for some more Prof. Bart goodness. Thank you again for your helpful and honest responses. Cheers.
No problem. But I wouldn’t say you’ve outstayed your welcome! Your comments are appreciated.
Is there any update or scholarship that continues Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”?
That book was meant to explain the decisions of the committee that created the UBS Greek New Testament, of which Metzger was a part. Since the Greek text has only been tweaked with over the years, there isn’t much more to say about what the original committee said. It would be indeed great for someont to write a full textual commentary on the variants of the NT. I thought about doing it once, but realized it would have to be about 2000 pages….