Loading...For today’s Readers’ Mailbag I deal with an interesting and important question about the changes that scribes made in their manuscripts.
QUESTION
In several of your books you mention that most modifications in the NT manuscripts happened in first 3 centuries. If I’m correct we have no manuscript from 1st century and only few from the 2nd. That means we can say almost nothing about changes during this time. This is however more than half of the “greatest modifications” historical period.
RESPONSE
This comment is more of a statement than a question, but the question is clearly implied: how do we know (or why do we think) that almost all of the changes in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament as found in later manuscripts were made early in the history of the tradition, in the first three centuries, if we don’t have many manuscripts from that period to prove it? Great question. But with an answer that I think just about every textual scholar agrees with.
To begin with: when textual scholars say that virtually all the important textual changes were made by 300 CE or so, they are NOT talking about accidental changes made by scribal mistakes, such as misspelled words or accidentally deleted letters or words. Surely some words were simply misspelled, for example, by scribes of the 12th century that had not been misspelled by the 3rd century – fair enough. So we’re talking about changes that matter for something.
And another point is that there are a couple but only a couple of well-known exceptions to this rule, well-known precisely because they are so exceptional. The famous “Johnannine comma” – the two verses found in older translations of 1 John 5:7-8, where the Trinity is explicitly affirmed (in the only explicit statement of the entire New Testament) first came into the tradition after 300 CE. But this is a truly exceptional case.
Virtually all the other “significant” changes – that is, ones that affect the meaning of the text in one way or another – appear to have been made prior to 300. But how do we know that, if we don’t have manuscripts from that period?
There are several points to note, the last of which is the most important.
First: ….
The rest of this post is for members only. If you don’t belong yet, don’t miss this, your big chance. It doesn’t cost much, and all proceeds go to charity. So JOIN!
I can think of two explanations for this.
1)There were more and more highly capable scribes copying the manuscripts, several centuries on, so mistakes in reproduction became uncommon.
2)The texts themselves, originally perceived as devout literary works that expressed views particular to certain sects within Christianity, became perceived as the inviolate word of God, as memory of their actual authors vanished (and people began to believe they really had been written by their purported authors). So tampering with them in any way would be sacrilege.
Bit of both?
Yup, that’s all part of it!
Very interesting analysis, Bart.
When it comes to the gospels, how do we define the ‘original text’? Do we define it as the original manuscript that was first penned by the author, or do we define it as the gospels in their most settled canonical form?
All four gospels seem to have large sections added to them over time, the opening two chapters of Matthew and Luke, most of Mark 16 and John 8 and all of John 21, but NA28, which seeks to reproduce the original Greek text of the NT, contain these chapters.
So how do scholars define what is and isn’t part of the original text?
It’s a big problem. The big movement these days is to get away from the “original” text (since, well, how would you define it) and to talk about the “initial” text — the form/wording of the text that is the foundation for the text as it was subsequently submitted in the surviving mss, whether or not that is what the author actually wrote.
You did just ‘define it’, though: what the author originally wrote. Don’t you think that’s what virtually everybody means by ‘original text’?
Isn’t figuring that out the whole point?
Ah, but which author? I think I’ll address this on the blog in a post or two.
I look forward to it! But, yes, if there are multiple authors, I want to know that too – and what those individuals ‘originally wrote’. I realize that may be unknowable in some (all?) cases, but that’s noteworthy in it’s own right as well.
It’s even more complicated than that. If Matthew used Q for his Sermon on the Mount, who is the original author — the author of Matthew or the author of Q? And if Q got the sayings from somewhere else….
Ooooh… that is *very* interesting! I had not heard of that development.
If modern scholarship has moved in this direction, essentially abandoning the original text in favour of the initial text, wouldn’t this mean we’re stuck with 2nd or 3rd-century church texts, rather than the 1st?
If so, Mary’s virginity remains intact and Jesus was Christ from birth. We’re being sold a Lucasfilm special edition of the Gospels!! #HanShotFirst I don’t want this paganised version of Christ, Bart! I want the original cut!
It doesn’t mean we are stuck with a 2nd or 3rd century text — but we may be stuck with a text some years after the original had been circulated. THe initial text could be, a copy of the original that itself was copied more than the original, which was eventually lost, e.g.
The problem I have is that there is an increasing amount of evidence to show that the virgin birth stories (which accounts for 4(!) chapters in the gospels) were inserted in the second century – which is where the ‘initial’ text is found.
I’ve watched your lectures covering this and I agree with you – having Jesus born divine changes who Jesus was and the Christian story significantly. The 1st C text would present Jesus progressing through his natures – first human, then a human Christ at his baptism, then a divine Christ (Son of God) at his resurrection.
It’s a little heart-breaking that this 1st-C depiction of Jesus became a heresy in the second century (after the virgin birth story was inserted in the gospels) because this makes Christianity in its original form a heresy and the paganised version of Christ (which should be a heresy) becomes the orthodox teaching.
This is so important for open-minded Christians like me who prefer to follow the evidence rather than the established doctrines of the church because we want to know the truth! We don’t want to follow a 2nd C paganised version of Christ, we want to follow the original 1st C Jewish version of Christ.
with this new new manuscript of Revelation reading 616. Is there any plan to make any change in the current book of revelation in the Bible reading 666?
Nope. I’ll explain in the next post.
Hi Bart. I thought the NIV Bible kept up-to-date with newer papyrus discoveries. Yet, it too shows 666 (and not 616) for REV 13:18. Why might that be?
I’ll deal with that in my post tomorrow.
since its being discovered that the story of the and the woman caught in adultery were not part of the earliest manuscripts we have why are they still included in recent revised Bible?
forgive my typos. I mean the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman
I’ll deal with that in a blog post!
Does the …theory (fact?) that the first 3 centuries CE were perhaps the most theologically unsettled times in the church – heresies and pro orthodox defenses abounding – influence the subject conclusion, or perhaps vice versa?
Not directly, but indirectly. There was less control generally in those early centuries — not only over “correct” doctrine but also over scribal practices.
Thanks Bart. If the earliest manuscripts show the number as 616 then where or how did 666 come into the reading?
Also, we’ve heard that 666 stands for Nero. If it’s actually 616 then does that change the meaning?
See today’s post!
An off-thread question if I may please. Today at church the preacher spoke about the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-23). He addressed the issue of Jesus explaining the meaning of the parable to the disciples privately but he did not comment on Matt 13:10-11 where he appears to be saying he deliberately speaks in parables so that people do NOT understand. (This is made more explicit in Mark 4:12).
Do you think there are elements of gnosticism in these passages in that Jesus excludes many from the knowledge which he secretly shares with his inner circle?
Good question, but no, I don’t think Gnosticism existed yet when these books were written. Later Gnostics, though, certainly appreciated passages like this!
Would the woman caught in adultry also be a rare case of something appearing after 300CE for the first time like the Johannine Coma?
It’s a bit harder to tell in that case; we do have a manuscript from around 400 CE that has it; was it in earlier copies? in the 380s Didymus indicates that it could be found “in some Gospels”
Eusebius quotes Papias (c100) who claimed the story appeared in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The Diatessaron (c170) doesn’t include it. Pope Callixtus I (c220) seems to cite the incident from a “gospel” – he doesn’t identify which one, but he’s likely quoting from a canonical gospel. Didascalia Apostolorum (c230) cites the story, but without identifying a source. It looks like it appeared in the canonical gospels in the early 3rd century.
I have a full discussion of all this in my article “Jesus and the Adulteress” in New Testament Studies 34 (1988) 24-44
Bart, when the early church fathers quote the New Testament, is it always from a Greek text (and not a Latin one) ?
The Greek fathers all quote it in Greek; Latin fathers, though, in Latin.
Thanks Bart. For me, this was a very satisfying entry. I’ve read several of your books which include this discussion, but having it laid out here so cleanly and tersely makes it easier to understand and remember.
How do your believing colleagues rationalize that these scattered and sometimes incongruous ancient writings were really the best way for the supreme intelligence of the universe to communicate his nature, his incarnation and his will to all future generations, especially given the deep divisions in Christianity, and among all the world religions? Maybe a few more personal appearances might help?
My believing colleagues don’t think about the Bible as a result of God trying to figure out how best to communicate with humans. They have much more sophisticated views than that.
Bart,
This is a question on a different topic. I’ve read Friedman’s “Who wrote the bible?” and, recently, Kugel’s “How to read the bible.” Kugle says that the documentary hypothesis as described by Friedman doesn’t have a consensus anymore and that a more complicated picture has emerged. He doesn’t seem to think this is important for his purposes, but I’m curious. Would you recommend a good book for the untutored reader? My search via the web has only confused me. Many thanks.
I’m afraid I know only of hard core scholarship that is very difficult to plow thorugh — I don’t know of anything for us mere mortals.
After many trade books, I’d like to tackle the heavy stuff (or try haha). What are these books you know of and/or rely on?
Sorry, I don’t have the thread to know what I was referring to. Which topic to you want some bibliography on?
To quote the original commenter “Kugle says that the documentary hypothesis as described by Friedman doesn’t have a consensus anymore and that a more complicated picture has emerged. He doesn’t seem to think this is important for his purposes, but I’m curious. Would you recommend a good book for the untutored reader?” What would be the latest and greatest?
It’s a great question, but I”m afraid I don’t know. The stuff I”ve read about it gets into the weeds very quickly; it’s complicated stuff, and I’m not sure if anyone’s tried to present it simply to non-experts. You might talke a look at Kugels’ book itself?
“It’s a great question, but I”m afraid I don’t know. The stuff I”ve read about it gets into the weeds very quickly; it’s complicated stuff, and I’m not sure if anyone’s tried to present it simply to non-experts. You might talke a look at Kugels’ book itself?”
Precisely! What are the ones that are complicated and in the weeds? That’s what I want to tackle next. Thanks!
I asked a colleague of mine who is an expert in Hebrew Bible. You can read my query at the bottom of the exchange adn his response at top. He didn’t give permission to share his name so I’ve not given it. (I didn’t ask)
Hi Bart,
To be honest, I don’t think there’s one great volume that does this, because the field is such an unbelievable mess. Once the Documentary Hypothesis falls, it’s basically just everyone’s personal guess of what sounds to them like it’s early and late, or what looks like it could be interpreting what.
So I’ll give you two volumes. One is a robust defense of the Documentary Hypothesis along revised lines, and I think its move against the fashion of simply dismissing the Documentary Hypothesis may be the right one. That’s Joel Baden’s The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. It’s also a pretty good read. The other is a collection edited by Thomas Dozeman: Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. That is, well, an edited volume, so not such a great read, but it had a significant impact on the field.
I hope that helps!
Best,
________________________________________
From: Ehrman, Bart D
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 1:34 PM
To:
Subject: Pentateuch
Hey,
Someone has asked me for a book that gets down into the weeds to complicate the Documentary Hypothesis and explain generally what scholars think today (as opposed to what we might teach 19 year olds; I realize it won’t be a new consensus that replaces the old one). Is there a good book you can recommend?
• B
Wonderful! Thanks to you and your anonymous friend!
I’ll try to make this question as brief as possible (how many times have you heard that?). I work in design and testing of computer software so I am aware of attempts to use computer analysis for NT textual analysis. In my reading I encountered “Coherence-Based Genealogical Method” as a way to classify manuscripts. However when I pursue it online the sites that I find assume a lot of previous text critical knowledge. Care to define it for a non-textual critic?
Sorry if this is way too far down in the weeds!
Thanks
I’m not sure it’s possible. It establishes the genealogical relationship of all the witnesses at each unit of variation, one at a time, and then produces a stemma of mss, at each place, leading to an overall stemma showing which variations were primary in the tradition and which corruptions.
Very interesting1
There is an essay by DAVID BENTLEY HART in Nov. 4 NYT about the early Christian church during the first 300 years that interprets “koinonia” as meaning communitarian or communist. This is not the first time I have encountered this view of the early church and I have no reason to disagree with Hart’s interpretation. But I am interested in your view of the nature of the early church as contrasted with Hart’s view.
I think the problem is that “communist” has too many modern associations to be of much use.
How much did love play a part in Jesus’ message
It was absolutely central. Love of God; Love of neighbor; that sums up the Torah.
Really interesting. Thanks for continuing to educate me.
Is the following an accurate, simple explanation? Or too simple?
In the first 3 centuries, we did not have arabic numerals (1, 2, 3 etc.) we have today, so letters were given numerical values, like Roman numerals.
Emperor Nero was called “Nero Kaisar” in the 1st century, based on an Aramaic 1st century scroll from Muabba’at.
Each letter has a numeric value, so in Greek “NRON QSR” adds up to 666.
But Latin drops the N with a value of 50, so “NRO QSR” adds up to 616.
The “Mark of the Beast” number depends on if it is a Greek or Latin source?
Thanks Bart for all you do for us struggling amateurs!
I’ts in the ball park, but not quite there. See today’s post.
I’ve read about that 616/666 variant. More interesting to me than the question which is the original reading, is the question of the meaning of the number. Do you think the discrepancy actually strengthens the argument that the number refers to Nero, since variant spellings, Nero/Neron Caesar, have the numerical values 616 and 666, respectively?
See today’s post. It wouldn’t mean that the *author* had Nero in mind, but it would mean that the later scribe understood that he did.
Jesus only spake in Aramaic so if Jesus had said to his disciple, “go ye in to the world and preach the gospel” how does he expect them to preach the gospel considering the fact they only knew one language? There is no evidence that Jesus himself speak in other tongues.
What was Jesus sense of the world then. The Mediterranean region or beyond? Cos even Paul thought the gospel has been preached through the world.
I suppose the idea is that they would have interpreters/translators!
My conclusion is that Jesus never told his followers to “go ye in to the world and preach the gospel,” but I suppose that’s just my opinion. My hypothesis is that while Jesus was alive he believed the eschaton was coming within months, if not weeks or days, so any notion of sending people out to proclaim the “gospel” was borderline absurd. As I see it, Jesus was probably not all that concerned about spreading the “good news,” assuming that God would know the righteous amongst the Gentiles from the wicked. Jesus probably saw the limited time for dissemination within John the Baptist’s mission. And after John was arrested and killed, then that brief window was closed. The way I see it, Jesus’ main concern was establishing himself and his immediate disciples (The “Twelve”) into the upper eschalon of the post-eschaton hierarchy, which is why they were waiting on the Mount of Olives, the traditional place upon which the Messiah and God’s heavenly host would descend to make war against Satan and his demons. The concern for spreading Jesus’ message and the “good news” only came about AFTER he had died and his disciples realized that the eschaton wasn’t coming any time soon.
Talmore
Vermes argues that Jesus “came only for the lost sheep of Israel” I think there’s also a story where Jesus instructs the disciples to against preaching to the gentiles. Vermes cites the fact that as late as the council of Jerusalem (where this was hashed out between Paul and the Disciples) that the disciples still did not know what to do with gentiles. Also worth mentioning is that after receiving the Great Commission the
Pillars are still in Jerusalem when Paul visits some 3 years after his conversion and then again some 14 years later. Only with Paul do we see someone in “the mission field” Almost certainly the GC is a later addition.
On the 616/666 number of the beast: In Hebrew, Nero is usually called “Neron Kaysar”, which in gematria (assigning a numerical value to each Hebrew letter) adds up to 666. But he could also be called “Kaysar Nero” without the final nun, whose value was (usually) 50, and that gematria adds up to 616.
Yup, see today’s post.
Was Nero Kayser Soze? 😉
Do you make this argument in a book somewhere? I could use a citation.
I *refer* to it in Orthodox Corruption, pp. 32-33.
So how or why did 616 become 666?
See today’s post.
616 doesn’t seem as evil as 666, does it.
And, did anyone tell Iron Maiden about this?
LOL
:)))) Good one.
What about Salmon Hater?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EdWwEMSyuY
This all seems so complicated that I marvel at how scholars can keep it all straight. Question: after all these years living with the material, do you know things like “what’s in P 75” off the top of your head? Or do you have to look it up to recall?
Edit: I just Googled P75 and it turns out it’s a major important find. That wasn’t intentional. I just picked a random number.
P75 I can handle. But for most manuscripts I have to look it up.
Is the letter from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan about Christians the earliest reference to Christians by a pagan author?
Yup.
I know this is an old post, but it is closest to the subject as I could find. I saw a video where you showed how a scribe changed something on purpose and notated it, I believe in the margins. You then showed how a later scribe changed it back, or something like that. I can’t seem to find the reference. In the video, I think you showed actual photos of the manuscripts and the notes/changes. I have watched so many videos I may be mashing them together in my mind. Hope this sounds familiar.
Yup, it is in Hebrews 1:3 in codex Vaticanus. The original scribe wrote a word that was different from the word used in most other manuscripts (Christ “manifests” all things instead of “bears” all things). A later scribe erased the word and replaced it with the more common one. A later third scribe erased the correctoin and put the old word back in, and wrote a marginal note: “Fool and Knave: Leave the old reading! Don’t change it!”
Dr Ehrman, 2 question if you’ll be so kind.
1) I found an online PDF of the late Gordon Fee’s dissertation from 1966 on p66 and p75. I was wondering do you know if it’s fair use? As a Muslim, I’m not allowed to consume stolen information or pirated material. I’m not sure who to ask about this as I’d love to read it.
2) would you be open to a debate with a a Muslim scholar on the crucifixion? I can possibly arrange one and pay for your expenses and fees and everything and we can make the proceeds go to one or more of your charities 🙂
Thanks in advance.
I don’t know, but I doubt it. It was just published with a number of his other articles in a volume that Eldon Epp edited, in a series that he and I (until last year) edited. The book is called Bodmer Papyri, scribal culture, and textual transmission. But since it’s published by Brill, it will cost and arm and a leg. It’s really on P66.
For speaking engagements, just send me a private email.