Loading...There were other organizational dilemmas that I faced in doing my textbook. As I indicated, I decided to begin with chapters on the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish world of the New Testament, and – before getting to the Gospels themselves – a chapter on the controversies in early Christianity that led to the formation of the 27-book NT canon. But there was one other rather fundamental issue. If I was talking about the canon of the NT before getting into a discussion of the NT books – shouldn’t I also talk about the text of the NT, that is, the surviving manuscripts of the NT, before discussing individual books?
Many readers on the blog will be familiar with the textual problems posed by the New Testament. In broad outline, the problems are no different from those posed by every book, or sets of books, from the ancient world, whether the Hebrew Bible, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, the plays of Euripides, the writings of Plato on down to the plays and essays of Seneca to the writings of Galen to the writings of Marcus Aurelius, and on and on and on. We don’t have any originals.
For all these authors, and in fact for every author from antiquity, what we have are copies made by hand. And all of these copies are much later than the originals – made from copies of copies of copies of the originals.
One of the things that makes the NT stand is that we have so *many* copies – far more than for any other book or set of books. Far, far more. The reason is not hard to figure out. Throughout the history of the West, in the years before the invention of printing, who was it who was copying the books of antiquity? It was principally Christian monks in monasteries. And what books were they copying?
Well, on occasion…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, DON’T BLOW YOUR CHANCE!!!
I actually loved the fact that you had covered that info in the LAST chapter. I understand the argument for talking about the textual issues up front but discussing it at the end, more or less, was the “last nail in the coffin” for me after reading a textbook that largely remained ‘neutral’ on the interpretation of historic data. The thing I love(d) the most about this book, is that the reader gets to ‘make up their own mind’ on how to interpret the historic facts that we have available to us.
“There are also more *differences* among the surviving copies, by a very large margin, than for any other book from antiquity”
Most are insignificant according to you and Metzger?
“And again the reason is obvious. Just about any scribe who copies a book will make mistakes. In fact, in the early centuries, it’s safe to say that *every* scribe who copied the books of the NT made mistakes. And when other copyists copied these books that already had mistakes, they copied the mistakes. And made mistakes of their own. And so mistakes proliferated.”
Didn’t any of these scribes have supervisors or someone who double checked their work product?
Yes, the vast majority are insignificant, as I repeatedly state in all my publications. And no, in the earliest period when most of the changes were being made, there were no supervisors or correctors.
“Yes, the vast majority are insignificant, as I repeatedly state in all my publications. And no, in the earliest period when most of the changes were being made, there were no supervisors or correctors.” Dr. B.
How do we know no one double-checked their work?
What does the vast majority tell us? What is it, specifically?
You might be interested in the study of early scribes by Kim Haines-Eitzen, The Guardians of Letters.
Thanks. (No offense Dr. B but you give more homework than all professors in the U.S. and parts of Canada combined!)
If you want to know the evidence, you have to read the scholarship!
Good morning,
When is the 6th edition expected out?
Thanks
Possibly in the summer.
Interesting progression. I agree with having the textual criticism earlier.
Regarding reliability of the NT, I’ve never heard a debate opponent of yours make the following argument: Despite copy from copies from copies, in Paul’s letters we can still sense his personality, a unique theological perspective and the manner in which he writes. So much so, that we can tell a real letter (Romans) from a fake (Ephesians). Are the letters different than other books because there’s a real person in the shadows that we can cross-reference? From the “reliability” of the scriptures perspective, how would you respond to that?
I suppose you could find “personality” in other genres, but they are obviously most clear in personal letters.
Real quick
John 20:2 King James Version
it says and the other disciple, whom jesus loved who was the author referring to ? That was faster runner lol
John 20:15
And jesus says to mary as referring to her as women as respect as a creation and not wife or else he would have showed emotion like emotion states when Jesus cried in a cave over John the Baptist
And jesus says don’t touch him when she tries to touch him as follower or as emotional connection as a wife ?
John 20:17
What state was he in and says he has not went to our father yet
But to the brethren ( immortal ? No lol ) so what was this at this moment? Could this level mind could be taught or it for chosen only ?
He was obviously showing intelligence ?
Is that what we all must pass going to brethren first before the father or is it only for the son that rose from the dead
Just as Adam did.
And John 20:24 ( twin/ didymus )
Gospel of Thomas ( LAMDIN translation )
Line 1
A couple of verses later he tells twin ( to touch him ?)
So why did he let thomas ( twin ) touch him and not mary what did he do in that time from
verse john 20:17. ” touch me not ”
And john 20:27 ?
Now he was flesh and bones after that when didymus touch his ribs lol
Just thinking is all 🙂
The Beloved Disciple of John’s Gospel is never named, and so various scholars have made a variety of suggestions over the years (John the son of Zebedee? Lazarus? Mary Magdalene? An unknown person? The author of the Gospel? A fictitious person? etc.)
Right.
Was never named ok.
We’ll I was talking about as we’ll
When jesus appeared to mary why
Did he say not to touch him
Was he glowing was he in a state of becoming a higher creation
But little later in gospel he
Tell doubting thomas to touch his ribs no prob
So no one can touch him untill he ascends to our father
So why did he say that
Analogy ?
And he said but go to brethren ?
So… This is after he rose in the tomb
So where did he go when he rose
She thought he was thee Gardner ?
Who was the Gardner lol
Did he plant roses near tomb lol
Made up character ? lol
He says ” I’m going to go my father ”
That’s it ? Nothing else ?
Then she runs to peter and unknown
Beloved disciple
Peter has the keys
But this disciple was beloved ?
Hmmm and got to the tomb faster lol
So he was the 2nd person to see jesus gone and the Linens lol
Specific details of positon of linens ?
Mary went there when yet dark?
Why does it matter if day or night ?
Was that tomb tradition to go yet dark
Or she just went there ?
And
When jesus appeared as in the flesh enough for Doubting thomas to touch his ribs
With doors being shut he interrupted
Was this visions or literally
Is the question
Why do the author call didymos?
And now the analogy of those who don’t believe it’s locked in with his purpose that
Those who don’t beleive untill they see him the flesh there blessed always
Kind of like the
Whole curtain splitting in half in the odor the sacred temple
at time of jesus on crosses
Just blogging. Is all
🙂
When jesus came first
His twin was not there and gave disciples power of judgement
Saying who ever you forgive there forgivin
And who ever you withhold forgiveness from will not be forgivin ?
And his twin says I will not believe it until he touches his flesh and
The author specifically states again in
John 20:26 8 days later ” THE DOORS BEING SHUT ”
He came to other disciples
Now what were these guy seeing. ! ?
OK NOW AUTHOR LEFT OUT IMPORTANT INFO that is critical to our understanding of he who reveals mysteries
So the author knew of other signs but chose not to include and why is that ?
Just like
The historian leaving out what
The guy that taught the Greeks of DIONYSOS
He left out some teachings learned from Egypt
JOHN 20:30 ???
So what happened that night ? Lol hmm
I don’t think Thomas is *Jesus’* twin in the Gospel of John.
Yes I know so why did is say thomas didymus
Was that doubting thomas ? Lol.
Right .
Yes, it’s doubting Thomas. And he’s called Thomas almost certainly because he was someone’s twin.
So these nostic gospel were circulating around same time ?
For example
Book of Thomas the contender .
Ok .
We’ll then.
Teacher of rightousness
Assene Judah ? Lol
Was John the Baptist
John bar
A assene, which I have also knowledge of the starting 100 BC roughly ?
So …. One cup, water baptize
We don’t know how widely a book like Thomas would have been in circulation.
Just a quick related note. I am in the midst of taking the “Alpha Course” through the local Methodist Church I attend here in Colorado. In one of the early videotaped lectures (Who was Jesus?) focusing on apologetics/doctrine one of the parts of “evidence” was the mention of the 5,500 copies of the NT in Greek etc. as proof of the integrity of the text. Of course I immediately remembered you explaining the whole copying process thing (in the Making of the New Testament Canon lectures) and the portions of the text that probably had been fiddled with doctrinally over the years. (The new ending to Mark and so on.) The point being that there is theology/ accepted doctrine and there is scholarship and former doesn’t seem to be paying much attention to the latter. Alpha leader, Nicky Gumbel, even mentioned “textural criticism” in passing but claimed it supported the text being pretty much unchanged from day one. Or that’s the way I took it.
“Well,” our pastor said, “it wasn’t meant as a seminary class.”
John the Baptist
Was the teacher of righteousness
Who was the teacher of righteousness bart ?
Who taught them
One cup and baptist with holy water. ?
Jesus was Maybe assenes people ?
John bar Zachariah teacher of righteousness ?
We don’t know the actual name of the TEacher of Righteousness, if by that you mean the figure mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Was talking about THEE teacher of rightousness
there were many teachers of rightousness
And sons of god was normal then like Jewish people but ” THEE ” is a textual variant ?
What divine abilities did he have ?
Reading scripture like nothing !!
He inspired the
Secrecy vows etc? when it came to secret knowledge ?
One cup, water baptise
They has pools back then
I know everything about Essenes and
That they wanted to get away from the modern corrupt Church at the time
Not now .
The footsteps in the church are positive and soon as everyone writes positive when they walk the story of negative will not last
John the Baptist was similar to the Essenes was he not ?
Jesus maybe was an Essenes and John bar
Both possible ?
So now I read the old testimate and Dead Sea scrolls as well as nag hammadi library alphabetical index and cononical goodnews
Just blogging is all
One thought has preoccupied, actually troubled me for years..
How does a tradition created by a people narrate their history, their aspirations, their belief systems come to be co-opted and re-purposed to fit the wants and needs of others who are alien to the culture in which the narrative originated?
I have always found it curious easily the Gentile converts striped Nazareth rabbi’s message of it Jewishness.
My sense is that this happens all the time. Just think about how different groups (noticeably the religious right) have co-opted the “Founding Fathers” for themselves. (Most of these guys were deists, not evangelical Bible-believing Christians!)
Bart writes: “We don’t have any originals.”
Any guess as to what the oldest original writing in existence is?
At least in the sense that you mean here…
Thanks.
I’m not sure what you mean by “oldest original writing.” Do you mean the oldest manuscript of the NT? Or something else?
“Just about any scribe who copies a book will make mistakes.” It is my understanding that a copy of the Book of Isaiah found in the dead sea scrolls is identical to fairly modern copies. Any thoughts, Bart, on why Jewish scribes did a better job copying Isaiah over the centuries than Christian monks did copying the NT books?
It’s not identical, but it’s very close — unlike, say, the book of Jeremiah which is 15% shorter. Jewish scribes developed rigorous practices to ensure accuracy; it’s a great question about why Christians did not do so as well.