Loading...In my previous post I talked about how I chose a scholarly-sounding title for my scholarly book on the use of literary forgery in the early Christian tradition. All of the titles for my scholarly books are ones that I’ve chosen, and they are all meant to signal that the book is … scholarly.
A number of my scholarly titles have been very straightforward – informative but not scintillating (and not meant to be scintillating). My first attempt at a title was for my dissertation, and I realized afterward that there was a bit of a problem with it. I wrote the dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary under Bruce Metzger, who was (and is) without peer, in my opinion and everyone else’s, as the leading NT textual scholar America has ever produced. It was an amazing and humbling experience working under him. I was his final doctoral student, and he and I became very close.
The dissertation topic was one he suggested to me. It involved combing through the newly discovered Old Testament commentaries of Didymus the Blind, a fourth-century church father living in Alexandria Egypt, in order to isolate his quotations of the New Testament Gospels, and then, on the basis of all those quotations, attempting to reconstruct the character of the New Testament manuscripts that he had available to him at the time. (We no longer have these particular manuscripts, obviously.) The reason that matters is because for more than a century, it had been recognized that the very best manuscripts of the NT were preserved in Alexandria. Two of our surviving manuscripts – codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus – are connected in one way or another with the church there, and to a great extent these two form the basis for our Greek New Testaments today.
Didymus was living at about the same time and in the same place as these manuscripts were produced. But the question was…
The rest of this post is for Members only. If you don’t belong to the blog yet, JOIN NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!
Member Content Continues:
I’m still reading through “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” — had started it a while back but picked it up recently to complete. I was looking at the translators’ notes for Luke 22:43-44 for the New English Translation, and was slightly puzzled while also somewhat amused over their note for this passage:
“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. For an important discussion of this problem, see B. D. Ehrman and M. A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44,” CBQ 45 (1983): 401-16.”
So they’re saying, “we agree that this is probably not the authentic reading, but because it seems like something that probably did happen, we’re including it anyway (bracketed, but still included).” And I’m not quite understanding why their arguments for thinking that it is “probably historically authentic” should be at all persuasive — they feel more to me like pious rationalization. Because it was in manuscripts from diverse locales (couldn’t corruption propagate this way as well as historical memory)? And because they can’t imagine why a scribe might invent this (even though they cite “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture elsewhere, meaning they must be aware of possible reasons)? And I don’t at all understand the “no synoptic parallels” argument. They have lost me on that point.
Yes, that’s a mind boggling note. The passage was not in the Gospel of Luke originally, or in any other Gospel, but was added in the second century: but it’s historically accurate! Wow.
CAN YOU HELP ME FIGURE THIS OUT ?
Right off the bat
” for I will not say that what is done in Egypt in connection with the god “( DIONYSOS )
Interesting a historian saying this 400 BC who prob had the true knowledge back then and done his research ” this guy left out some important info, if he really did not say how Egypt was connected to DIONYSOS. And the Greek gods
A man ( historian ) 2 1/2 thousand years ago ( Herodotus ) speaking of
Egyptians 2 1/2 thousand years ago
And Melampos coming from Egypt and teaching greeks knowledge from Egypt about DIONYSOS and his father zeus etc ?
about DIONYSOS ( from Egypt ?) he got the Greek god DIONYSOS knowledge from Egypt ? Melampos?
And Herodotus states that ” he will ALSO not state if the Egyptians got there customs from Greece ?
Interesting
I’m sorry I just feel I understand the NT Which is the more recent testimate ? Lol book of Revelation speaking of hades ( Greek god ) so a lot of things gets cancels out a lot of things in the bible with his name alone 🙂
Again I’m just a guy that has known his whole life in MID 20’s coming up theories. And trying to understand the human existence and historical evidence of our footprints as best as possible. ” I believe in jesus for the record ”
If you can send me a link to figure this out i would be thankful.
Herodotus, Histories 2. 49 :
“Melampos [a mythical seer] was the one who taught the Greeks the name of Dionysos and the way of sacrificing to him . . . besides many other things which he learned from Egypt, he also taught the Greeks things concerning Dionysos,
ALTERING A FEW OF THEM ?
for I will not say that what is done in Egypt in connection with the god
[Osiris identified with Dionysos]
and what is done among the Greeks originated independently:
for they would then be of an Hellenic character and not recently introduced. NOR again will I say that the Egyptians took either this or any other custom from the Greeks.”
Again, I hope you are also working on an autobiography … your scholarly journey is fascinating.
“The Orthodox Alteration of Scripture”? “The Orthodox Modification of Scripture”? I suspect most of these scribes believed they were merely “clarifying” the texts they altered. I can picture them sitting there and thinking, “Hmm, this passage is open to heretical misinterpretation. We, of course, know what the correct interpretation is, but how can we ensure that no one else is led astray? If we change the wording just a little bit, we can bring out the actual intent of the text more plainly. Surely there couldn’t be any harm in that…?”
I like the ‘corruption of scripture’ version, but I suppose you could have used the more neutral ‘alteration of scripture’. Using the word ‘corruption’ is rather deliciously on the salacious side and would evoke a rather startled second look from most readers of theological texts. Second looks lead to desire to actually read the material in order to discern your intent. No reason not to use the language as skillfully as you do to increase interest in your topics.
I think you were correct. 😉
Interesting info. Thanks and keep going!
People are still corrupting scripture by cherry picking the verses they like (for example the Golden rule) and ignoring the verses they do not like (for example the divine killing in the Old Testament).
I used to dream about finding a manuscript of William Shakespeare in an old trunk from one of my distant relatives in England. I suppose just one would be quite pleasing to Sarah, not to mention the world of Shakespearian scholarship. Given your knowledge of the ancient world of early Christianity, which manuscripts/books/accounts would you like to have in the original? I assume you would want the four Gospels in their original writing. This only comes to mind given that there were corruptions along the way to suit the theological interests of the “winning” orthodoxy.
Setting aside the issue the title for a moment to add a small footnote to the discussion of “correction” vs “corruption”:
There’s an interesting point with regard to the intent as opposed to the effect. Did any of these folks imagine themselves as actually _changing_ the text in any real way? Rather, it’s probably reasonable to suggest that they saw *themselves* as making legitimate corrections to an already problematic text.
To give an example from a rather different angle, Dr Ehrman has often mentioned the Ebionites who –because of their theologically-motivated vegetarianism– changed John’s diet of “honey and locust” to “honey and “pancakes”.
We have no way of knowing, of course, but I’m willing to bet that –however flaky the change might sound to our ears– if you asked the Ebionite scribe who made the change, it would have never crossed his mind that he was “corrupting” the text. Rather he was simply correcting an obvious “typo”.
(Needless to say, though, as with so many things it is the winner who gets to decide what constitutes “correction” and what “corruption”. 😉 )
I’m a non-scholar and I have Orthodox Corruption (you even autographed it for me at a lecture.) it’s a little drier than your trade books but not inaccessible. It never occurred to me that the title was anything but a perfect description of the material, or that what you wrote in it was inaccurate or disprovable in any way, and I am surprised to hear about Metzger’s reaction. Was there similar push back from other scholarly quarters?
Yes, a bit. But that phrase “orthodox corruption” has become a standard term in the discipline now.
Did jesus say anything?
Well, if he was a human being, I think there’s a good chance he said a lot of things!
“Well, if he was a human being, I think there’s a good chance he said a lot of things!” Dr Bart
For example?
Maybe, “Good morning! What’s for breakfast?”