(12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...For a very long thread now, I have talking about the textual criticism of the New Testament. As I said early on, “textual criticism” is a technical term. It does not refer to any kind of analysis of the texts of the New Testament; that is to say, it is *not* about the interpretation of the New Testament texts. It is specifically about how one goes about evaluating the surviving manuscripts (and versions, and church father quotations) of the New Testament in order to reconstruct what the authors originally wrote: (that is, it does not ask what the authors *meant* by what they wrote; it is instead concerned with establishing what, exactly, they did write. Textual criticism needs to be applied to every surviving writing – from Homer’s Iliad to Wordsworth’s poems to … the Bible. Without textual criticism you would not know what an author said.
All of this discussion has been preliminary to answering the question asked by a reader concerning what I had in mind when I wrote my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, over twenty years ago now. To explain what I was doing in that book, I’ve had to set the stage by explaining what textual criticism is and what it does – how scholars use the various textual witnesses (Greek manuscripts, early versions, quotations of the text) – in order to reconstruct the text.
My book was written in large part to challenge and even dethrone two standard views/assumptions held by textual critics. These views/assumptions had been around for a very long time indeed, and were simply the views that virtually every textual had back when I got into the field in the late 1970s and the 1980s as a graduate student. These views were that:
The Rest of this Post Is For Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM. You’ll never regret it for a minute or a dime, all dimes going to charity.
I have often wondered what brought you into that field. I will be waiting with bated breath for your next posts.
This was fun to read with your fifth paragraph of “let alone”s and then the parenthetical comments. No doubt, you have the talent to make those classes on textual criticism not only fascinating but fun.
Anytime we absolutely love something, we can find a way to make others love it, too. I wanted my sons to enjoy reading and poetry. By starting early and making sure the books and poems were age-appropriate and very, very delightful, I succeeded. A friend who loved math taught her children every game she could find that involved numbers. They all ended up good at math.
It sounds to me as though you’re saving textual criticism from oblivion.
Thank goodness you saved it from its death in America. Your work has been incredible. It is such a pleasure to know you as a scholar. Thank you for all you have done in this field.
Oh no, I don’t claim to have saved the field!!! But I *was* lucky to be alive and active at the time of its resuscitation.
To me, looking at textual criticism of the NT from the outside, it seems like this field could very easily be prone to bias. I mean say, new data on Pluto from the New Horizon’s mission, even if contrary to my prior views regarding this planet, don’t really push any of my bias buttons to the level that decisions on NT data might.
Are there any specific techniques that you employ when you do textual criticism work (i.e. yoga, drinking scotch 🙂 etc.) to consciously minimize your bias, or is it all subconscious for you? I ask this strange question in case such a technique might also be helpful for an armcharite like me who wishes to minimize personal bias while reading an English only version of the NT.
Yes, all fields of inquiry, especially historical inquiry, are subject to bias. And those who say *their* views are “unbiased” are the ones you have to look out MOST for!!!
Dr. Ehrman, I seem to have parablepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton.
This is a potentially serious prob-
ably will resolve itself. It only happens every once
when I was riding in a car, there was a bump
and the book I was read-
y to go after that.
Have a cheerful weekend!
Sashko
!!
This morning’s “News and Observer” has an article which reminds me of two of your recent books. The article is entitled “Surrender Still Divisive for Japan.”
First, the article implies that Japanese and Americans have quite different memories of the ending of World War II. Americans remember that the two atomic bombs caused the Japanese to surrender. The Japanese, on the other hand, remember that the emperor had already decided to surrender before the two bombs were dropped and, hence, the bombs had no effect on that decision. This difference in memory reminds me of what you wrote about there being different memories of the Civil War in your upcoming book “Remembering the Messiah.” .
Second, the article implies that the Japanese considered the emperor to be a “god.” This reminds me of what you wrote in “How Jesus Became God” about how ancient Roman emperors were considered to be “gods.”
I just noticed two books by M. David Litwa about deification and how Jesus was depicted as a Mediterranean God. Have you read these or were they published too late for “How Jesus became God”? The one on “Becoming Divine” looks especially interesting.
Yes, he was my student. He is writing for a different audience (not a general lay-readership).
Well, since “textual criticism” pretty well establishes that there is no “the Bible,” but instead there are many different texts and variations, this seems to pretty well debunk the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy which seems, to me, to be a very important contribution to our understanding of things so I am very appreciative of your book entitled “Misquoting Jesus.” The “gist” of the Bible may be in the ball park, but the details, as shown by textual criticism, are not exact.
“It does not refer to any kind of analysis of the texts of the New Testament; that is to say, it is *not* about the interpretation of the New Testament texts. It is specifically about how one goes about evaluating the surviving manuscripts (and versions, and church father quotations) of the New Testament in order to reconstruct what the authors originally wrote: (that is, it does not ask what the authors *meant* by what they wrote; it is instead concerned with establishing what, exactly, they did write.”
When I did my doctoral studies in the late 80s and early 90s in Belgium, textual criticism was very much alive and well. Professor DeLobel was an associate of the Alands in Münster, but the other professors were also passionate about the importance of text criticism. They would disagree that the interpretation of the text should be divorced from textual criticism. For example, the lectio difficilior may seem more difficult initially but if it can be aligned with peculiarities of the style and theology of the author elsewhere, that internal coherence is a strong argument in favor of a particular reading.
Ah, yes, I knew Joel DeLobel. He was (and I assume still is) a terrific scholar and a wonderful human being.
Sort of OT: What was the term, again, for ancient Jews’ becoming convinced that something was fact…that therefore, there *had to be* a prophecy of it in their Scriptures…and then, hunting through those Scriptures until they found something they could “reinterpret” as meaning what they wanted it to mean?
Vaticinium ex eventu?
What books and/or articles that you’ve written would you recommend that are on the more scholarly technical side that someone like myself would be interested in taking a look at.
Maybe try Orthodox Corruption of Scripture; or Forgery and Counterforgery; or my collection of essays, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament?
How much does archeology factor into new testament textual criticism?
Also I don’t know if you know of archaeologist William Dever, he came out with a book last year in which he writes that the writers of the OT had little to no knowledge of the Egyptian empire and it hegemony.
Is this also true of the writers of the NT and their knowledge of the Roman empire.
Archaeology matters to textual criticism only to the extent that archaeologists discover manuscripts. Yes, I know Bill Dever. He’s very impressive and his books are great. But it’s different with the NT. He’s saying that the OT authors had no connection with Egypt. The NT authors were actually *living* in the Roman world.