QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
After the main portion of the Tors-Costa debate was
completed, audience-members asked questions, which each debater answered. Some of the questions were relevant to the
announced subject of the debate, and some were not.
First Question: What do you believe is the authentic conclusion to the Gospel of Mark?
Costa went first, stating that the authentic text concludes at verse 8. The early manuscripts, he explained, end there. He also noted that although Irenaeus knew verses 9-20, he also cited Acts 8:37, which is not a majority-reading. Costa them pointed out that some early writers raised questions about the authenticity of verses 9-20, such as Jerome, who said that hardly any manuscripts have it, and Eusebius, who said the same thing. Costa expressed a desire to know what Mark wrote, not what some scribe wrote. In addition, he argued, when you look at verses 9-20, it looks like a patchwork of pieces from the other Gospel-accounts, pieced together by a later scribe.
Costa went first, stating that the authentic text concludes at verse 8. The early manuscripts, he explained, end there. He also noted that although Irenaeus knew verses 9-20, he also cited Acts 8:37, which is not a majority-reading. Costa them pointed out that some early writers raised questions about the authenticity of verses 9-20, such as Jerome, who said that hardly any manuscripts have it, and Eusebius, who said the same thing. Costa expressed a desire to know what Mark wrote, not what some scribe wrote. In addition, he argued, when you look at verses 9-20, it looks like a patchwork of pieces from the other Gospel-accounts, pieced together by a later scribe.
Second Question: (for Dr. Costa) You said that textual variants do not
undermine any significant doctrines. But
doesn’t the removal of Mark 16:9-20 undermine an essential doctrine,
specifically, the doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead?
Costa answered, “There is a resurrection in Mark 16.” Three times, Jesus predicts His
resurrection. And in Mark 16, the young
man at the tomb announces that Jesus is risen, so in Mark, there is a
resurrection. Mark couldn’t be a
Christian if he didn’t believe in the resurrection. No one can read Mark 16:1-8 and come away
thinking that no resurrection has happened.
There is a postmortem appearance that is anticipated in Galilee . There is a resurrection.
Tors: When Jesus
appeared to His disciples, they were very difficult to convince. Even when He shows up, in Luke, they have to
touch him. Thomas insisted that just
seeing Him wasn’t enough; he wanted to touch the wounds. The concept of someone rising from the dead
is very difficult to grasp. To say that He predicted that He would rise from the dead, and that some guy at the tomb
claimed that He rose from the dead – that’s a resurrection? Would you believe that? Isn’t it more reasonable to think that that
guy took away the body? How can you say
there’s a resurrection there? There’s a
claim. (One could say that the truth of the predictions is confirmed
by the post-resurrection appearances, not the other way around.)
Third Question: (for Dr. Costa) I am an accountant, with many textbooks. The ones I use a lot get crumpled up; the rarely
used ones stay in good shape. So, is it
possible that the Majority Text manuscripts – the “embarrassment of riches” –
are descended from earlier manuscripts that are no longer around because they
were worn out by regular use, whereas those others – like Sinaiticus, which
Tischendorf says that he found as the monks were burning the leaves – survived
because they were less-used, and were less-used because they were considered
unreliable?
Costa: First,
Metzger’s phrase “embarrassment of riches” refers to all New Testament
manuscripts, not just the Majority Text manuscripts. (But if one takes them out of the picture, is the remainder still plausibly described as embarrassment of riches? For it is almost invariably followed by a declaration of how many New Testament manuscripts there are, as we saw in Costa’s opening statement.) The Byzantine manuscripts were better
preserved because they were protected and “regulated” in the Byzantine
Empire , safe from the Islamic hordes.
About
Tischendorf: “Tischendorf did not say
that he found Sinaiticus in a trash bin.”
That is a myth. He tells us that
he saw something in the monastery, and they brought him Sinaiticus, which was
covered in a red crimson cover. It was
covered in “a beautiful crimson covering.”
“It was not something that was being thrown out.” That’s a common myth. (Super-gaffe: Costa has been misled by James White, who is
very similarly mixed up about how Tischendorf claims to have discovered
Sinaiticus. Costa is describing
Tischendorf’s 1853 visit to St. Catherine’s Monastery; it was in 1844 that
Tischendorf visited, and it is during that visit – he claimed – that he found
pages of Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, as the monks were about to discard them
into the fire. (Tischendorf’s story is
highly dubious, and at St. Catherine’s monastery it is maintained that the
monks were certainly not about to burn the pages. But Tischendorf most definitely claimed that
this is how he first encountered pages from Codex Sinaiticus, and anyone who
still imagines that James White’s (and Tony Costa’s) version of events is
well-informed can read about Tischendorf’s 1844 visit, and his 1853 visit, in Tischendorf’s own account.)
Costa
proceeded to blame “the Muslim hordes” for the loss of many non-Byzantine
manuscripts. He pointed out that although the map that Tors had shown pictured the Byzantine Empire as it existed in the year 600, it didn’t
show the impact of the Islamic invasions that happened later. Instead of seeing things in the year 600, Costa said that he would like to know, “Where are these Byzantine text-types (plural??) in the first 300 years of the church?”. (Since Costa had just proposed that “the Muslim hordes” destroyed thousands of manuscripts during their conquests of Byzantine territory, the means to supply a strong response was practically served up to Tors on a plate, but the opportunity was not taken.)
Tors responded: Tony
is missing the point about the Byzantine Empire . If the Alexandrian manuscripts were so
superior and so numerous in the 300’s, then why wasn’t it the Alexandrian Text
that was spread throughout the Byzantine Empire from the end of Roman
persecution in the early 300’s, to the beginning of the 600’s? Nothing would prevent that, if it had been
the case. The assumption that the Alexandrian Text was dominant in that period is
opposed by the evidence.
You can’t just
go by the number of manuscripts that have survived, (Tors continued) because the survival of
early manuscripts is very rare. Early
Alexandrian papyri survived because papyrus is fragile and vulnerable to decay. And in Egypt ,
most of these “best manuscripts” (via his
inflection, Tors implied “so-called”) come from garbage heaps in
Oxyrhynchus, where their owners had torn them up and thrown them out into the
garbage.
Fourth Question: (for Tors)
In Luke 4, a passage from Isaiah 61 is quoted by the Lord, but when we
look at the passage in Isaiah, it is different from what is seen in Luke. So where is the poison: in Luke, or in Isaiah? How do you decide which one is correct? If Jesus’ quotation is correct, is the
Masoretic Text wrong?
Tors: This isn’t
really a question about New Testament textual criticism. My understanding is that the Hebrew text used
in Jesus’ day was more similar to the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text is,
and ancient manuscripts such as the texts from Nahal
Hever [especially a scroll-fragment
of the Minor Prophets] prove that.
Regarding the poison, I’m not blaming textual criticism per se. It’s the method of textual criticism that elicits
mistrust in the authority of Scripture, because it conveys that the original
text has errors. Darwinism and
historical criticism, combined with a method of textual criticism that says
that the original reading is the one that has errors in it, contribute to this
doubt. Even though people try to explain
away the errors in the text as if they are not errors, eventually people are
going to conclude that the text has errors.
And this makes people lose confidence in the text; this leads to the
erosion of Biblical authority.
(The questioner spoke
up again, but this was a minor breach of protocol.)
Costa: I agree with
John about the current decline in morality.
A lot of that has to do with the Enlightenment. But the problem is deeper than that. Even
when we had a text of Scripture that everyone believed was absolutely reliable,
there were still heresies. Now then: I
have issues with John’s view on the Septuagint. (Tors had given Costa a golden opportunity to point out a contrast between his statement, “You can’t just go by the number of manuscripts that have survived,” and the statistical case that Tors had used earlier, but this opportunity was not taken.)
Fifth Question: (for Tors)
In cases where there is a difference in meaning between the Old
Testament Hebrew text, and a quotation in the New Testament, how would you
ascertain the original reading of the Old Testament passage?
Tors: If there’s a
difference between the Masoretic Text’s reading and a quotation by Jesus, I
would suspect that there is an error in the Masoretic Text. That doesn’t mean the Old Testament has a
flaw; it means that the scribes who transmitted the Old Testament text made an
error, like the scribes who made the manuscripts that the NIV is based on.
Costa: “I think what
John said would seriously undermine the reliability of the Old Testament. The Greek Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint
as their Old Testament text. Jerome and Augustine had a disagreement about
which should be considered authoritative:
Jerome used the Hebrew text but Augustine favored the Septuagint. This has really hit a nerve. If John applies the same methodology to the
Old Testament that he advocates for the New Testament, we are in big
trouble. (Costa’s straw man reappears; if
the baker bakes a can of gasoline ....) This is very, very serious. Most quotations from the Old Testament in the
New Testament agree with the Septuagint word-for-word.
●●●●●●●
One could wish that the
debate had maintained a tighter focus in its second half. Nevertheless,
from start to finish, Tors presented his view on the announced subject far more
effectively than Costa presented his view. Costa repeatedly got his facts mixed
up. (His “family 33” mistake was particularly bad; his confident dismissal
of Tischendorf’s story about Sinaiticus can be blamed on James White, whose
book was obviously his source.) Costa’s go-to objection (about the
danger of using a Majority Reading approach on the Old Testament text) was
merely a straw-man argument. Tors won this debate, and it was not close.