In
Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, a group of scholars presents fifteen chapters focused on some persistent misconceptions about
subjected related to New Testament textual criticism.
A chapter-by-chapter review is fitting, due
to the diffuse nature of the subjects that are covered.
FOREWORD (Dan
Wallace)
Dan Wallace
is, at the moment, known for initiating one of the biggest pieces of
misinformation ever spread pertinent to New Testament textual criticism:
his claim (
in a debate with Bart Ehrman
on February 1, 2012) that there is a manuscript of the Gospel of Mark from
the first century.
Having already issued
an
apology for that fiasco, Dr. Wallace is perhaps especially qualified to
warn readers against the dangers of gullibly believing unverified claims such
as the ones addressed in this book.
He
lists some of the propagators of some of the book’s target-claims, including
Craig Evans, Philip Comfort, and Michael Kruger.
Wallace also seems a bit less ambitious about
the primary task of New Testament textual criticism – the reconstruction of the
original text – than one might expect; he seems content with a compilation that
is “good enough.”
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION (Peter Gurry and Elijah
Hixson)
The authors
of this chapter (who are the editors of the whole book) point out that when
wacky and bizarre claims are made by those who misrepresent the New Testament
text’s reliability, the proper response is not to defend it with equally
unjustifiable claims.
Atheist Robert
Price is mentioned as one example of a victim of sloppy apologetics.
Apologists’ sloppiness may be due to, or
consist of, three factors:
(1) the use of outdated data,
(2) abused statistics, and
(3) selective use of evidence.
Several pages focus on this last source of
inaccuracy as shown by false claims about “First Century Mark” and the Dead Sea
Scroll fragment
7Q5.
The authors
are perfectly clear about what they regard as the primary task of New Testament
textual criticism. Contrary to some
European scholars who aspire to reconstruct an early text, or who approach
textual variants as hints of various historical doctrinal controversies, Gurry
and Hixson, following the example set centuries ago by Johann Bengel, affirm
that “The nature of God’s Word requires us to seek out its original form to the
full extent of our God-given abilities” (p. 21). Following an overview of the contents of each
chapter, they summarize the purpose of the book: to keep the truth from being supported by
falsehoods.
Did the
original documents of the books of the New Testament last for centuries after
their texts were initially produced?
Craig Blomberg and Craig Evans have encouraged folks to answer, “Yes,” but in this chapter, Timothy
Mitchell make a strong case against using such a claim in any argument for the
reliability of the text of the New Testament.
Along the way, he explains that in ancient times, there was some
fluidity about the exact nature of “autographs” – compositions could be
circulated unofficially in unfinished forms, prior to their formal publication. A statement from the rhetorician Quintilian
is used to demonstrate this, and augmentation is provided by evidence from the
second-century writer Galen. Mitchell
also presents a composition preserved in two papyri – a petition to the
Egyptian prefect Publius Ostorius Scapula – to show that composition-production
sometimes occurred in stages. However,
Mitchell makes no clear connection between the process by which that
composition was produced, and the method in which any particular New Testament
book was produced.
Mitchell
addresses the notion that Paul’s epistles were produced in sets of identical
twins – one copy being sent to
Rome,
Corinth, Galatia,
etc., while the other copy was kept in the possession of Paul or a
colleague.
This scenario would make it
easy for an early copyist to acquire excellent exemplars of Paul’s letters to
copy.
Mitchell, countering
Craig
Evans’ claim to the effect that Paul followed a custom of making a copy of
every epistle he wrote, insists that it is “quite possible” that Paul did not
make twin-copies of letters such as his letters to Timothy and Titus.
(In addition, it is precariously speculative
to assume that the customs of an acclaimed writer such as
Cicero would be observed by Paul in prison.)
Mitchell
argues very effectively that when one considers the harmful effects of climate,
persecution, wars, natural disasters, and other factors, it would be unwise to
attempt to build a case for the reliability of the New Testament case on the
assumption that the autographs of New Testament books lasted for
centuries. As stated in the Key Takeaways of this chapter, “It is
unlikely that the New Testament autographs still existed and influenced the
text by the time of our earliest copies.”
CHAPTER THREE: MATH MYTHS (Jacob W. Peterson)
In this
candidly written chapter, Jacob Peterson warns against casual appeals to
quantities of manuscripts as if the number of copies ensures the accuracy of
their text. Along the way, he warns
against making the mistake of describing the number of manuscripts in an overly
precise way: an assortment of very good
reasons renders it unwise to do so; perhaps chief among them is that although
323 items have been given a majuscule number, “forty-one have been stricken
from the Liste,” and if one takes
other factors into consideration, the number of verifiably extant majuscule
(i.e., uncial) copies “drops to 261.”
Peterson
argues in favor of weighing manuscripts rather than counting them, echoing a
maxim popularized by Metzger. In a
series of informative charts, Peterson shows the dangers of appealing to “New
Testament manuscripts” in general as
if they all support specific readings; it is superfluous to appeal to hundreds
of copies of the Gospels as if they support a textual variant in the Epistle of
James. Likewise it is not necessarily
helpful, even when zeroing in on Gospels-manuscripts, to assume that all
Gospels-manuscripts are extant at every point; many are fragmentary.
Those who
would argue that the most-copied Greek reading is statistically the reading
most likely to be original might find some shortcomings in parts of Peterson’s
arguments. He seems to be approaching
the question from the perspective of someone who knows that he advocates
readings with very thin attestation (he describes Hort’s 1881 compilation as “a
very good and reliable text” on p. 67), and who thus wants to reduce the force
of arguments from number and scope.
However, all readers may benefit from his advice to describe the
manuscript evidence accurately, setting aside sensationalistic claims in favor of more judicious references to 5,100-5,300
manuscripts, with an awareness of the extent of their contents.
CHAPTER FOUR: MYTHS ABOUT CLASSICAL LITERATURE (James
B. Prothro)
In this
chapter, James Prothro very specifically takes aim against claims that have
been propagated by F. F. Bruce, Stanley Porter, Bruce Metzger, and others,
regarding the relative advantages possessed by those undertaking the
reconstruction of the New Testament text compared to those undertaking the
reconstruction of the texts of other ancient compositions.
Like Peterson in the previous chapter,
Prothro advises against pursuing exact numbers when describing manuscript-evidence
– in this case, manuscripts of non-Biblical works.
He also demonstrates that to cite past
generations’ estimates of the number of manuscripts of non-Biblical works is an
appallingly bad idea.
One example: don’t
boast that there are only 643 manuscripts of Homer’s
Iliad.
Metzger mentioned
that quantity in 1963, but Prothro mentions that a 2001 research-paper on the
Iliad described “1,569 papyri.”
Likewise, past researchers (and some present
ones – looking at you,
Porter
and Pitts) have terribly misrepresented the chronological distance between
some authors of antiquity (Herodotus and Thucydides) and the production-date of
the earliest copies of their works.
Prothro
advises readers to ensure that when they compare the attestation for the New
Testament to the attestation for other ancient works, they use up-to-date
data. In addition, the limits of such
comparisons should be acknowledged:
having better attestation is
not the same as having incontestable
attestation, especially when one adopts and defends variants that are opposed
by over 90% of the extant manuscripts of a particular New Testament book (which
advocates of the Nestle-Aland compilation routinely do).
CHAPTER FIVE: DATING MYTHS, PART 1 (Elijah Hixson)
Norman
Geisler (†) and Philip Comfort are not to be trusted when production-dates of early
manuscripts are concerned. Also, Papyrus
52 is not as important as many researchers (such as Karl Jaroš, Philip Comfort,
and Carsten Peter Thiede (†)) have made it seem. These are two of the main points of this
chapter, and Hixson supports them very competently.
Hixson
points out that assigning production-dates to New Testament manuscripts is
often difficult. Sometimes a colophon in
a manuscript helpfully mentions the manuscript’s production-date; sometimes the
conditions in which a manuscript was found imply chronological parameters for
its production; sometimes manuscripts are written in scripts which had short
periods of popularity. But often we must
be content with approximations.
Hixson may
approach P52 a bit too mathematically at one point, when he argues that even if
P52 could be assigned precisely to 125, it would only prove that this
particular part of the Gospel of John was in Egypt at that point; it would
still be possible that the Gospel of John as
we know it was yet to be produced.
This reminds me of a joke about a physicist and a mathematician who were
in an airplane that flew above a flock of sheep: the physicist, upon returning to his home,
made a note that he had flown over a flock of white sheep. The mathematician, upon returning home, made
a similar note, stating that he had flown over a flock of sheep that were white
on top.
Hixson
recommends avoiding narrow date ranges – but he proceeds to say that “fifty
years is the
smallest acceptable
window for a date range assigned on paleographic grounds” (p. 108).
That is still too small.
Reckoning that
(a) a copyist could be active for 50 years, and
(b) a copyist’s handwriting tended to remain
basically the same throughout his career, and
(c) we do not know how old the copyist was when he produced any
particular manuscript, we ought to allow 50 years
on either side of an estimated production-date.
Hixson basically agrees with this in his Key
Takeaways, affirming that “a range of seventy-five to one hundred years is
typically more preferable.”
The same
sentiment is reaffirmed in his statement that “The responsible date range of
P52, probably our earlier manuscript, is AD 100-200, and a few scholars even
extend that range into the 200s.”
(Although I would contend that
P104
has just as good a claim to the title.)
Readers of
the online
TC-Journal may recall Dr.
Lanier’s
2016 essay on Matthew
21:44, in which he argued for the non-genuineness of that verse. Here,
he investigates a common assumption:
the
myth that the younger the manuscript, the worse its text – or, to put the axiom
in reverse, the older the manuscript, the better its text.
Lanier establishes that the Byzantine Text –
which is not the same as the
Textus
Receptus – is a pretty good form of the text of Acts and the Epistles:
the undivided Byzantine Text, he observes,
fully agrees with the Editio Critica Maior “94% of the time.”
(This is a somewhat slippery statistic; the
ECM remains heavily Alexandrian; there are simply very many points at which
some MSS disagree with both the Byzantine Text and the flagship representatives
of the Alexandrian Text.)
Lanier also
openly concedes a point which Dan Wallace has seemed hesitant to
acknowledge: “P45, P46, and P66 share
over one hundred readings with the Byzantine tradition against the early
majuscules” (p. 116). And, “A multitude
of Byzantine readings go back as far
as the 200s.” And (quoting Klaus
Wachtel), “The high agreement rates connecting these witnesses demonstrates
that a large body of text was safely transmitted from the very beginning of its
transmission through the Byzantine period to today.”
After pointing to manuscripts 1739 (and
related MSS), 1582 (and related MSS), and 2138 (and related MSS) as examples of
relatively late manuscripts preserving relatively early forms of the text,
Lanier considers some scribal treatments of three famous textual variants: John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, and Luke
22:43-44. Unfortunately Lanier does not
seem to notice that some of the scribal notes he mentions are related – for instance,
the short note about Mark 16:9-20 in MSS 15, 22, 1110, etc., is the same note
found in 1, 205, etc., except it has had the part about the Eusebian Canons
removed, almost certainly because the Canons had been expanded, so as to
include vv. 9-20, by the time they were produced. This may be overlooked in a chapter that is
not focused on that particular passage.
But surely Lanier’s statement that Family 13 manuscripts transferred
Luke 22:43-44 into the text of Matthew “for reasons unknown” is wrong. This was done for liturgical reasons related
to how the passages were read at Easter-time, as one can see by consulting the
lectionary-apparatus found in the margins of many manuscripts.
Some claims
that have been spread by Bart Ehrman virtually beg for clarification – and in
this chapter, they get it.
Were early
copyists of New Testament texts typically enthusiastic amateurs, lacking the
training necessary to replicate the contents of their exemplars?
Cole investigates the quality of Christian
copyists’ work up to the time of
Constantine,
and straightens out some common misinterpretations of statements made by C. H.
Roberts.
Cole offers a straightforward view:
in that period, being a professional scribe
did not necessarily make one competent at copying, and
not being a professional scribe did not make one incompetent.
Cole cites Alan Mugridge’s
2015 study,
Copying
Early Christian Texts: A Study of
Scribal Practice, to bolster his case that most copyists of most
Christian texts were competent.
He also
mentions specifically P45, P46, and P75 as examples of manuscripts written by
competent scribes.
(One might ask, then,
why the texts of P45 and P75 are so different.)
After concluding that most early New Testament manuscripts “bear the
marks of trained and capable scribes,” though, Cole acknowledged that there
were exceptions, and he mentions two of them:
the scribes of P72 and P47.
The
scribe of P66 has escaped.
Cole then
builds a case against the myth that scribes of New Testament manuscripts were
typically “freewheeling.” This case has
three points: (1) a comparison of many MSS filters out quirk-readings, (2) the flagship manuscripts of the
Alexandrian Text express scribes’ intent to make careful, accurate copies, and (3) textual variants in our extant MSS
do not support the idea that scribes habitually abandoned their exemplars.
Each one of
these points invites challenge:
● It is not
so easy to filter out quirk-readings from the Alexandrian Text if one has
pre-decided that a few Alexandrian manuscripts outweigh hundreds of Byzantine
ones. Although Cole insists that our
knowledge of the text of the New Testament “is not based on the witness of one
or two manuscripts,” there are places in the Nestle-Aland text where that is
exactly what it is based on.
● When one
observes the 3,036 disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the
Gospels, it is difficult to maintain that both manuscripts exemplify a high
level of scribal accuracy. Milne &
Skeat’s description of Scribe B of Sinaiticus are a needed wake-up call: “The habits of B [i.e., Scribe B] are
difficult to describe in moderate language; still more difficult is it to
understand how a scribe so careless and
illiterate came to be chosen for such a manuscript. He seems to have had
no firm visual impression of Greek, so barbarous and grotesque are the forms
which his misspellings can present to the eye, and with such utter
inconsistency does he sway from correct to incorrect. His aberrations
extend over the whole field.”
● Cole
states that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are in doubt, and thus pose
problems (if they are rejected) for the idea that copyists never supplemented
their exemplars with additional materials.
(John 7:53-8:11 is supported by about 85% of the Greek manuscripts of
John, and Mark 16:9-20 is supported by over 99% of the Greek manuscripts of
Mark.) But this is also the case for practically
all Byzantine readings opposed by Alexandrian rivals, of which there are many.
Finally,
something must be said about Cole’s presentation of John 5:4.
Cole observes that this reading is in Codex
Alexandrinus, but not in earlier manuscripts such as P66, P75, Vaticanus, and
Sinaiticus.
By consulting this early
textual evidence, Cole says, “we can see that John 5:4 appears to be an
explanatory gloss by a later scribe.”
What Cole does
not say is that
Tertullian, in his composition
De
Baptismo, mentions that “
An angel
used to do things when he moved the Pool of Bethsaida. Those who complained of ill-health used to
watch out for
him, for anyone who got down there before the
others, after washing had no further reason to complain.” This implies that either a tradition or a
textual variant encapsulating what is stated in John 5:4 was already
circulating not only later, but before
the production of those manuscripts.
Cole’s case
for the competence of early scribes
is strong, but his case for the fidelity
of scribes cannot be applied in the same way to scribes in both the Alexandrian
and Byzantine text-streams.
Of all the
chapters in this book, this one may be the most not-for-beginners.
Malik takes readers on a wide-ranging tour of
corrections in manuscripts, ranging from P66 and Codex Sinaiticus to minuscule
61 (famous for its inclusion of the
Comma
Johanneum, but also notable on account of many corrections and
alternative-readings in its margins) and even to the Egerton Gospel.
Malik
brings an It’s-Not-So-Bad diagnosis to the work of the copyist of P66. The scribe’s initial work needed hundreds of
corrections, and this was seen by E. C. Colwell as evidence that the copyist
was inattentive; on the other hand, considering that the scribe reviewed his
own work and made those hundreds of corrections, this may be seen as an
indication that he was trying, albeit in multiple steps, to make an accurate
copy – using more than one exemplar in the process. Jumping ahead over a thousand years, GA 61
displays, if not scribal interest in correcting the main text of the manuscript,
at least a desire to preserve, in the margin, some alternative readings,
particularly in Revelation 1-4.
Jumping
back to P66, Malik engages Bart Ehrman’s claim about three specific variants,
in John 10:30, 19:5, and 19:28.
In each
case, Malik argues, what Ehrman has interpreted as deliberate doctrinally
motivated tweaking is explained more plausibly as a symptom of scribal
inattentiveness.
Perhaps
Hanlon’s Razor should
become a text-critical guideline.
Mark 1:1 in
Codex Sinaiticus, and a reading in the
Egerton Gospel, are then briefly
considered, but frankly the chapter would be better without them;
the variant in Mark 1:1 in Sinaiticus is
considered in more detail later (in chapter 10), and the entire discussion of
the reading in the Egerton Gospel seems, to me, rather speculative.
In this
chapter, Matthew Solomon – who has made a complete collation of all known Greek
manuscripts of the book of Philemon – uses his experience with the text of
Philemon to unteach an idea which is not so much an explicitly taught myth as it is a common assumption: the idea that the textual apparatuses found
in the UBS and Nestle-Aland editions of the Greek New Testament convey a full
picture of the amount of textual variation in the extant manuscripts. Along the way, Solomon introduces readers to
the collation-process, and to a series of variants in the text of Philemon and
factors which may have elicited them.
After
pointing out that we do not have very many early Greek copies of Philemon –
only nine from before c. 700 (of which only three are complete). And “Only about 4 percent of the manuscripts
we have for Philemon date to before the year 900.” Solomon consistently favors readings from
earlier manuscripts, and explicitly regards the text of most manuscripts of
Philemon as “a later text.” (Readers who
just finished watching Lanier kill the myth of “Older is Better” in chapter 6
might wonder why it is still moving here in chapter 9.) In his discussions of textual contests in v.
2 (ἀδελφη, “sister” versus ἀγαπητη, “beloved”), v. 7 (χαραν γαρ πολλην εσχον, “Because
I have great joy” versus χάριν γαρ εχομεν πολλην, “Because we are very
thankful”), and v. 12 (non-inclusion of προσλαβου, “receive [him],” versus
inclusion), the reading attested by a large majority of manuscripts is
rejected. However compelling Solomon’s
reasoning for the minority reading may be, a bit more balance – a bit more
deliberation – would have been welcome.
Solomon
briefly describes certain kinds of variants and the factors that elicited
them:
the addition of some small words
served to benignly separate (or connect) different phrases.
In other cases, small words were added to
render the clear meaning of the text even more clear.
Solomon points out that at the end of verse
20, some MSS read εν
χω (in Christ), most read εν
κω (in the
Lord), and a few have neither reading.
Considerations
of some other readings in Philemon can be found elsewhere, in Solomon’s 2015
SBL presentation
Textual
Variants as Commentary: Philemon as a
Test Case.
Some
readers may take issue with Solomon’s assertion that the text of Philemon is
uncertain (i.e., possibly something other than what is adopted in NA28) in only
two places.
But his detailed approach is
valuable, even where it could have benefited from more consideration of
versional evidence (which has almost all been rendered invisible throughout the
discussion).
Finally, readers are sure
to benefit from seeing the question,
“What
was the motive for this variant?” at work in Solomon’s analysis.
Perhaps a bit more attention should have been
given to
P139,
the fragment of Philemon which was published at the same time as the papyrus
formerly known as “First Century Mark.”
CHAPTER TEN: MYTHS ABOUT VARIANTS (Peter J. Gurry)
In this
chapter Peter Gurry wrestles with what is surely the most widespread myth in
New Testament textual criticism: the
idea that textual variants have no effect on Christian doctrine. Almost from the outset, he grants the point
that “Some variants . . . really do touch on important doctrines” (p.
193). After hashing out an estimate of
the number of textual variants in existence, though, he only discusses a few in
detail, pointing out along the way that in some passages, readings which only
exist in the minds of textual critics have been seriously proposed to be the
variant that best accounts for all their rivals.
Mark 1:1 –
involving the presence, or absence, of “Son of God” – and
Luke
23:34 – involving the presence, or absence, of Jesus’ prayer for the
forgiveness of His crucifiers – and John 1:18 – involving the contest between
“only begotten Son” and “only begotten God” – are used to illustrate the point
that some the results of some textual contests make a large impact upon how one
interprets particular passages.
However, these are probably not the best examples that could have been
chosen; the textual decisions that are made regarding Mark 1:41 (where, in the
base-text of the 2011 NIV, Jesus becomes angry, rather than compassionate),
Matthew 27:49 (where the Alexandrian Text supports a form of the text that
starkly contradicts the narrative in John 19), and First Corinthians 14:34-35
(which some textual critics regard as an insertion made by scribes) have heavier
impacts.
A small
point that Gurry makes on p. 206 may need to be revisited: after listing 25 New Testament passages that
contain textual variants that affect interpretation, he states, “There is no
attempt to hide these variants,” considering that “They are plainly visible
right in the footnotes of most any modern English translation.” But upon taking in hand my 1995 New American
Standard New Testament, I find textual footnotes for only nine of the listed
passages (Mk. 16:9-20, Luke 11:1-4, John 5:3-4, 7:53-8:11, Romans 16:24,
Ephesians 1:1, Second Peter 3:10, and Jude 5 – and 1 Thess. 2:7, which was surely what was meant, rather than 2 Thess. 2:7). In addition, in all major English
translations, the textual footnotes are hopelessly vague and imprecise; in the
Christian Standard Bible’s footnotes, for example, “Other mss” might refer to
99% of the manuscripts in existence, and “Some mss” might refer to a single
manuscript (cf. the CSB in Mark 1:41 and 9:29).
Furthermore, another 25 passages could be listed which contain
significant textual variants, but which usually receive no footnote in major
translations.
Gurry’s chapter is worthwhile for its
balanced demonstration that while no basic Christian doctrine stands or falls
on the outcome of one specific textual contest, the outcome of some textual
contests has an impact on the doctrinal message of specific passages. He may downplay the degree to which this is
the case when he says that only “a few dozen” variants affect the meaning of
the text, and “some of these” are theologically important. However, his brevity is understandable, for
it would require another large book to adequately analyze all of the passages
that have their meaning altered by a textual variant.
Finally, Gurry’s
contention that “no doctrine is in jeopardy because of a serious variant” is
somewhat open to question. Some variants
(in Matthew 1:7-8, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 27:49, Mark 5:1, Mark 6:22, Luke 1:26,
Luke 4:44, and Luke 24:13, for example) seem to express historical or
geographical errors, and the inerrancy of a compilation of the Greek New
Testament would seem to depend on which reading is adopted in those cases.
CHAPTER ELEVEN: MYTHS ABOUT ORTHODOX CORRUPTION (Robert
D. Marcello)
Orthodox scribes corrupted
the text of the New Testament – but what was the extent of that corruption, and
how difficult is it to undo with competent use of our available resources?
That question is explored by Robert Marcello,
the Assistant Executive Director of the
Center for the Study of New Testament
Manuscripts.
Marcello considers
Hort’s view regarding orthodox corruption – which was thoroughly incorrect – and
proceeds to identify two manuscripts with texts that show unusually high amounts
of doctrinally motivated corruption:
Codex Bezae and P72.
The thing to
see is that the specific corruptions in D and P72 are
unusual. The scribes of the
texts in these two manuscripts exhibit a level of recklessness that is not
typical; thus their quirky readings can be filtered out with relative ease.
Marcello
then focuses on two textual variants which have been accused of being
doctrinally-motivated corruptions – in Matthew 24:36 and John 1:18 – and argues
that in both cases, the reading that aligns with orthodox theology can be
defended as the original reading.
(Marcello
thus disagrees with the Tyndale House GNT regarding what John 1:18 originally
said.)
In the case of the contest in
Mt. 24:36, Marcello relies on some earlier research undertaken by
Dan Wallace, the
Executive Director of CSNTM.
In general,
Marcello does an adequate job of grounding readers in the reality that most
copyists did not aspire to depart from their exemplars.
The sensationalistic claims made by Kurt
Eichenwald are justly dismissed as sensationalistic and ridiculous; the claims
of Bart Ehrman, while much more sane, also contain many exaggerations and
assumptions; Marcello describes them appropriately as “overplayed.”
He helpfully points readers to
Wayne
Kannaday’s work for more information.
A small
fault in this chapter is the lack of any mention of John Burgon’s contribution
to the subject of orthodox corruption; Marcello states (p. 218), “Ehrman ought
to be credited with opening wide the door to the discussion of orthodox
corruption,” but it was Burgon who, long before Ehrman was born, wrote a full
chapter titled “Corruption by the Orthodox” in his posthumously issued book,
The
Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
CHAPTER TWELVE: MYTHS ABOUT PATRISTICS (Andrew Blaski)
The first
part of this chapter is sharply focused, and makes its point with positively
vivid force: the often-repeated claim
that the text of the entire New Testament, except for eleven verses, can be
reconstructed from quotations embedded in early patristic writings is
groundless. Despite being spread by
Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Norman Geisler, and others, this claim is
false. It is not just false; it is not
conceivably close to being true. If you
have spread this false claim, stop!
The second
part consists of a nuanced tour of patristic evidence and the methods by which
it should be analyzed. Blaski informs
readers that patristic support for a textual variant may have different levels
of strength, ranging from explicit quotations maintained in all copies of a
patristic composition in the language in which it was written, to mild
allusions in some copies of a translation of a patristic composition. In addition, patristic writers sometimes made
composite quotations, sometimes quoted from a Gospel without identifying
specifically which Gospel was being quoted, and sometimes merely gave the gist
of some passages. In addition, some
patristic writers borrowed from the works of earlier writers, and some later
writers’ works have been misidentified as the works of earlier writers.
Before a
patristic statement can be cited for or against a specific textual variant, its
authenticity and degree of clarity must be established. If this is the only point readers take away
from this chapter (and vow never to spread the false claim that practically the
whole New Testament can be extracted from early patristic quotations), it will
be worthwhile.
There is however one statement
Blaski makes which should be reconsidered. On page 249, he states the scriptural
quotations in letters written by Cyprian in the mid-200s “appear almost always
to agree with the text preserved in the Old Latin manuscript known as VL 1
(Codex Bobiensis; k).” Perhaps Blanski is echoing some inaccurate
statements made previously by Metzger and Ehrman (whose Text of the New Testament he mentions as a source in a footnote);
they wrote that the quotations in Cyprian’s letters “agree almost always” with
the form of the text preserved in k. But when one consults the 1886 Old Latin Biblical Texts II, in which the text of k is compared to Cyprian’s quotations,
one finds on page lxii the summation of a comparison of Cyprian’s quotations
from Matthew, and k’s text: they agree in 97 readings, but disagree in 44 readings. No comparison is possible past Matthew chapter
15, for Codex Bobiensis is not extant after Matthew 15:36. As for the text of Mark, Codex Bobiensis is
not extant for Mark 1:1-8:7, and Cyprian appears to quote only sparingly from
the remaining chapters: Wordsworth-White
list a total of less than 25 verses from k,
and they certainly do not all agree with Cyprian’s quotations; nor do they come
close to doing so.
In this chart-heavy chapter, John
Meade opposes the minor myth that if copyists included a book in the same codex
that contained major New Testament books (such as the Gospels, and/or Acts and
the Epistles), it meant that the copyists regarded that book as authoritative,
canonical Scripture. Such an assumption
does not have much of an overall effect, for the number of New Testament
manuscripts which contain both canonical and non-canonical books is very small;
nevertheless Meade goes into great detail in the course of testing the
theory.
He finds – after a
consideration of various canon-lists from various eras, and a somewhat
superfluous review of New Testament manuscripts made before the 700s – that
mere inclusion in a codex that contained canonical books does not mean that a
book in the same codex was necessarily considered canonical. This conclusion, I am confident, is correct,
but the evidence Meade uses to justify it seems problematic: referring to Gospels-manuscripts made before
the 700s, he states (p. 266), “Most of these multiple-book codices contain only
two or three books,” and “A relative few codices evince the four-Gospel
collection,” but this is almost entirely merely the effect of incidental damage
over the years; if a majuscule had the Eusebian Canons and Sections, it almost
certainly had all four Gospels when it was initially produced.
Also, although Meade states, “In
Greek manuscripts, there is no evidence of a noncanonical Gospel being joined
to a canonical Gospel” (p. 270), there is more than Greek manuscripts to
consider; a Coptic apotropaic amulet from the 600s or 700s (
Brit.
Lib. Or. 4919(2)) contains the opening words taken from Matthew 1:1, Luke
1:1, John 1:1, and Mark 1:1, but also, before them all, a phrase from the legendary
letter from Jesus to
Abgar.
It might be worthwhile to ask if
superstition – in this case, the idea that a particular composition was lucky,
or somehow conveyed divine protection – was ever a factor in the inclusion of
some compositions in the same collections that contained canonical New
Testament books.
In any event, Meade makes an
adequate case for resisting the assumption that inclusion in a codex with
canonical books implied that another book was also canonical.
A little common sense ought to lead one to
the same conclusion; Eusebius’ letter to Carpian (explaining how to use the
Canons and Sections), chapter-lists, book-summaries, Paul’s itinerary, and
other supplemental materials are in many manuscripts, but nobody ascribed
apostolic authority to them simply because they were in the codices.
(On page 266, a chart lists “1043” as a manuscript that contains text from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is
lectionary 1043.)
This chapter gets off to a rocky
start.
Jeremiah Coogan (Ph.D. candidate,
Notre Dame) opposes the
claim that there are 25,000 New Testament manuscripts, if we consider copies
made in any language; he asserts that this estimate is “far too large.”
However, his assertion is not easy to prove,
inasmuch as the jury is still out, so to speak, regarding exactly how many
Latin copies of the Vulgate exist, and how many Armenian New Testament
manuscripts exist.
Some readers may want
to set that issue aside and re-start with Coogan’s uncontroversial explanation
of the nuances involved in the use of versional evidence.
Not all versions are created
equal.
A version that is itself a
translation of another version tends to be less useful than a version made
directly from the Greek text.
In
addition, some languages are simply not built to convey some idioms and
nuances.
When such factors are taken
into consideration, however, versional evidence can provide important support
for textual variants – especially the early Latin, Syriac, and Coptic
versions.
Manuscripts in these languages
are the focus of most of this chapter – which is unfortunate; other versions
get almost no attention, and their origins are only blurrily described:
“By the late fourth century,” Coogan states,
“most or all of the New Testament had been translated into Gothic, Ethiopic,
and Armenian” (p. 284).
But this is not
quite right where
the Armenian version is concerned; its initial production
occurred in the first few decades of the fifth century.
After describing the Old Latin
version(s), Coogan describes the Vulgate, stating that Jerome used as the basis
for the Vulgate Gospels an Italian form of the Latin text, and revised it
“toward a Greek text with strong similarities to Codex Sinaiticus (01)” (p.
286).
(Some readers might want to test
that claim, for which Coogan offers no support.)
The Latin transmission-stream(s) are then
briefly described – but for this material, readers are advised to put down this
book and pick up Hugh Houghton’s
The
Latin New Testament.
Syriac manuscripts are described
next, and Coogan reviews not only the Old Syriac and the Peshitta, but also the
Philoxenian and Harklean versions; inasmuch as the Harklean version was made in
the early 600s, this renders the lack of attention given to the Armenian and
Georgian versions inexplicable.
Finally the Coptic version is
considered, along with manuscripts written in various Egyptian dialects. Not enough attention is given to the impact
of revisions upon the Coptic text.
The
descriptions of Middle Egyptian manuscripts are too brief to allow new readers
any hope of appreciating their potential significance.
This chapter disappoints. Coogan proposes that apologists ought to merely
say that there are “a few thousand versional manuscripts” but he seems unable
to prove that there are less than 20,000 such manuscripts. What is the point of replacing a myth – if
myth it be – with a guess? In addition,
important aspects of versional evidence, such as the close affinity shared by
the early Sahidic version and the text of Codex Vaticanus, have been left
unmentioned.
This chapter does not seem to remedy
any myth; instead, Edgar Ebojo (who may already be known to some readers due to
his research on Papyrus 46)
explains some of what is involved in the work of modern translations of the New
Testament. He candidly affirms that many translations are being attempted by
people who do not have training in either textual criticism or the Biblical
languages; these individuals, it seems, must depend heavily on resources such
as Unitarian
Roger
Omanson’s
A Textual Guide to the
Greek New Testament.
Ebojo states that the first
challenge for translators is to decide which text to translate; after
mentioning a few recent editions, he focuses on the United Bible Societies’
compilation and confirms that “Unless there is a strong clamor from the
churches they serve, the default is always the UBS-NA text” (p. 309), due to
the stipulations of an agreement between the UBS and the Vatican’s Secretariat
for Promoting Christian Unity.
(This might provoke two different
reactions from readers: first, it may be
surprising to see such a candid affirmation that the promotion of the United
Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament is to a large extent a Roman Catholic enterprise. Second, it may be surprising to see that the resolve
of UBS representatives to use the Nestle-Aland compilation as a base-text can
be vetoed by the strong clamor of local churches.)
UBS’ guidelines allow translators a
degree of freedom to make on-the-spot adjustments to their base-text, but they
are to be limited to readings with “A” or “B” ratings. (This guideline ought to be revisited,
inasmuch as NA28’s own editors abandoned an “A” reading.) Special consideration is often given to
passages which are double-bracketed in the NA text itself: Mark
16:9-20, the Shorter Ending of Mark, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:34a, and John
7:53-8:11.
Ebojo spends some time addressing
the question the helpfulness of footnotes which mention textual variants and
alternative renderings. Toward the end
of this part of the chapter, he raises an important question: if footnotes are not intelligible, are they
helpful? Do novice Bible-readers discern
what is meant when a footnote says, “Some ancient authorities” support this or
that reading? (I would contend that 99
out of 100 Bible-readers do not really grasp what such footnotes mean, because
the annotators use the same terms to refer to vastly different things.)
A short section then turns to
features of the text that have had historical significance:
nomina
sacra (Mark 1:1 is mentioned, again), itacisms (Romans 5:1 is
mentioned, again), and accents.
In the
course of discussing accents, Ebojo offers a brief (but interesting) review of
different approaches to Romans 16:7:
was
Junias a man or a woman?
One can answer
the question by accenting the name one way, or another.
Two statements in this chapter may need
slight adjustments.
First, on p. 213, as Ebojo discusses
the
pericope adulterae, he raises a
question about how helpful it is to point out in a footnote that the passage
has been found in other locations such as “after Jn 7:36 or Jn 21:25, or after
Lk 21:38 or Lk 24:53.”
Such notes are certainly
unhelpful, for they do not inform the reader that the Pentecost lection begins
at Jn 7:37; nor are readers informed why this is significant.
Even more unhelpfully, readers would be
misinformed by such a note, inasmuch as
no
manuscript has John 7:53-8:11 after Luke 24:53.
The only manuscript which has part of the
pericope adulterae at that location is
GA 1333, and,
as explained elsewhere, it is a secondary addition,
extracted from a lectionary. in that manuscript:
John 8:3-11 was added there, with the
lection-title “From [the Gospel of] John” and a heading stating that the
passage was to be read on Saint Pelagia’s feast-day.
It was added on this page simply because the
page happened to be blank.
Second, on the same page, Ebojo
briefly mentions that while translators “seem to have decided long ago that the
Gospel of Mark must not end with Mark 16:8,” a question remains as to “which of
the six narrative endings to conclude with.”
The problem with this statement is that there are not “six narrative
endings” of Mark after verse 8.
There
are two:
verses
9-20, attested by Irenaeus in the 100s (in
Book 3 of Against Heresies he quotes 16:19 and states that he is citing from
near the end of Mark’s Gospel), and by over 1,600 Greek manuscripts of Mark,
and the “Shorter Ending,” attested in Greek in a total of six manuscripts, all
of which also include at least part of the usual 12 verses.
Framing the evidence as if there are six
different concluding narratives to choose from is like having three empty
picture-frames, 1,600 pictures of your dog, one picture of your cat, six
pictures of your dog and cat together, and one picture of your dog and a
chew-toy, and concluding, “I have six pets.”
In general, each chapter of Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual
Criticism has something worthwhile to offer to the reader. This book does not address all the text-critical
myths that need to be addressed. Truckloads
of misinformation in KJV-Onlyist materials have been avoided. Bundles of misinformation from apologists
such as James White, Matt Slick, Dan Wallace, Ben Witherington III, John MacArthur, the Got Questions website, the Defending Inerrancy website, etc., have been ignored. Some passages with significant and interesting textual variants, such as Matthew 13:35, Mark 9:29, Romans 1:16, I Cor. 10:9, and Hebrews 1:3, are not explored or even mentioned. But
one has to start somewhere. Myths and
Mistakes is a good start.
Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.
