Loading...In trying to figure out what it even means to talk about the “original” text of Philippians (was it what Paul meant to dictate? Was it what he did dictate, if it was different from what he intended? Was it what the scribe wrote even if it was different from what Paul dictated? Was it what Paul corrected after he saw what the scribe incorrectly wrote? Was it the fresh copy that the scribe made even if it was different from the corrected version Paul gave him? What happens if in fact Philippians is two letters that have been spliced together by a later editor, as many scholars believe, rather than just one letter – is the “original” the two different letters originally sent or the spliced together version that Paul did not create but someone else did? Etc. etc.), in trying to figure all this out, several readers have suggested that the easiest way to look at it is
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!
Serious Hypothetical (And Realistically Possible) Problems With Copies of Paul’s Letters
June 9, 2024
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
16 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Do we know how quickly texts wore out?
It completely depends on local circumstances. My first edition of the Hobbit was read to shreds. Others have lasted longer. Papyrus could last for many many centuries, and parchement for relatively forever.
If the Philippians were reading their original copy so much that it was waring out, they would surely have been motivated to check that their other copies were reasonably good, by comparing them against the original. Aren’t you giving them insufficient credit?
By the way, my recent JSNT article shows that Fortunatus (1 Cor 16:15–18) sent a copy of First Corinthians to Rome, having added some marginal text that clarified his leadership. The Church of Rome responded by writing First Clement. The marginal text was later incorporated in some copies, and survives in MSS, including western MSS.
Well, I’m certainly not crediting them with a modern perspective on sugh things.
Does it really matter who wrote it and when? the same applies to the entire Bible — no one knows who wrote any of it. Each reader will decide which passages are highly important (i.e., inspired by a higher power), somewhat important, and unimportant. Authorship is totally unimportant — as Bart has explained, everything is the nth copy and contains an unknown number of changes from the original. Maybe the person who made the copy that has now been translated to “American English” is the one who was inspired to “correct it” in the way that best expresses an ultimate truth.
Bill Steigelmann
The questions are always: “matters for what? and for whom? and why?” It matters to me, for example, if a book is big if I want to use it as a doorstop.
Paul is “sus”. Notice that 2:10 seems to be the only reference to “jesus” without the christ. Is there any resemblance to Paul ever being Jewish? He always seems to push “christ” contrary to Jesus.
OK, so scholars now think that O is not an original letter but a composite. Let’s call it OC. In your scenario, someone in Philippi took two of Paul’s letters, let’s call these M & N, and spliced them together to form the text of subsequent copies. It seems unlikely that the Philippians would do this, but so be it.
So now we have, 2 originals that were received by the Philippians, M & N, and a composite, OC. I have no doubt that all three of these would be of historical interest, the 2 originals from Paul, obviously, and also the thinking that went behind creating the composite. This seems pretty straightforward, does it not?
Are you not creating further complications than need to be there?
Well, I can see why it might seem that way. But some matters really are more complicated than we might like. It depends what you’re interested in and looking for. If you take a slice of one of my blog posts and a slice from another an combine them, you have destroyed the literary context of both and so may well have thereby altered the meaning of each of them by your final production.
Hi, Bart,
1) Why is there no ascention of Jesus into heaven mentioned at the end of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark nor of John?
2) Doesn’t the below verse go against the evangelical belief that only Jesus is the middleman between humans and God in forgiving sins?
John 20:23 NRSV
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
They probably didn’t believe there was an ascension much later (40 days). Actually Luke 24 has him ascending the day of the resurrection and Acts 1 40 days later! By the same author. Go figure. But it appears that the ascension is Luke’s invention. The earliest Christians appear to have thought that Jesus was taken up to heaven at the time of the bodily resurrection.
Hi Bart
what do you think about presupposition in the sence of the second comming?
some people say that john 21 says that the beloved desiple was alive and the second comming happened?
John 21 seems to assume that the Beloved Disciple has died (the editor of the chapter clarifies: Jesus was not saying he would not die, but was posing a hypothetical; that suggests he knows he *did* die already and is explaining that Jesus never actually said he would NOT die)
Hi Bartc
Mark 21: 43 is mentioning the kingdom of god as a present place on earth but it needed to be the comming kingdom do you think jesus messed up there with his language?
Sorry: I’m not sure which verse you’re referring to.
“Actually Luke 24 has him ascending the day of the resurrection and Acts 1 40 days later!”
I didn’t know that. Great find, Dr. Ehrman.
So, the ascension rituals for theocratic kings can take place up to 100 days. It could be because Pontius Pilate stealth awards Jesus King?
Another thing I learned today is that Paulites believed the Kingdom of Heaven was a material place as well as a spiritual one. For them, Rome was that kingdom.
This resembles the gnosticy “as above, so below”, and the Mandaean idea that Earth is an image of Heaven, just with distortions from projection.
So why wouldn’t Paulites have thought the Kingdom of God was also a real kingdom in Jesus’ time if it was used in the present tense? (The KOH parables seem pretty Nabataea-coded.)
I’m reading Revelation through Akkadian Eblaite symbology — “bright morning light” is invoked in a Naram-Sin inscription for appointing rulers. (Also Naram-Sin syllabically inscribed daš2-ḫa-ra (think Dushara) for Ishara, the Eblaite goddess of the divinized royal household!)
Revelation 22:16
…”I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Does this mean Jesus is BMS, or David, or both?