We do not have an original copy of the New Testament. The New Testaments we read are translations of the Greek New Testament, which is itself an edited text compiled from several thousand manuscripts that have survived from ancient times. There is nothing at all abnormal about this. Still less is it insidious, suspicious, or grounds for uncertainty about the Christian message. It is, in fact, exactly what you would expect from an ancient text. In addition, the fact that such a large number of manuscripts lie behind the Greek New Testament is a very good thing.
This is not the impression exuded from some in the atheist agnostic camp. Here we find a kind of rhetoric that seeks to colour negatively what is thoroughly normal, cast suspicion on a vast array of evidence that is positively helpful, and thereby undermine confidence in the foundational documents of Christianity.
It is there in Dawkins’s The God Delusion, although certainly not in a major way. Almost in passing, he simply notes, of the four Gospels, that “All were then copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers generations’ … by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas”.1
Dawkins draws upon Bart D Ehrman, the once-fundamentalist-now-agnostic New Testament scholar, who has a special interest in such matters. Because of his expertise, it is surprising to find Ehrman ‘awfulizing’ the situation so extremely—perhaps coloured by his autobiographical perspective at this point:
We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.2
Presumably because, rhetorically speaking, quantification sounds more solid, Ehrman also suggests that:
… these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.3
But it is not the counting that is surprising—or misleading—; it is the ‘awfulization’. The careful reader will find the more moderate Ehrman admitting that “Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant”.4 Exactly right: the majority (that is, as some have counted it, 99 per cent!) of the some 400,000 variations in the Greek (spelling, word order, etc.) can be regarded as virtually unnoticeable. They don’t even come over into the translations. Because of scribal conservatism, even deliberate changes that could be called ‘theological’ introduce things that are already taught elsewhere. And because of the scribal tendency to smooth things over, the textual critic prefers ‘the most difficult reading’ as closer to the original, and so the more ‘radical’ reading is ultimately handed to the New Testament reader anyway.
But perhaps we can return to Dawkins for a minute. When he refers to “Chinese Whispers” in his comment about the copying and recopying of the Gospels, it sounds negative. But at this point, he rather strangely refers ahead to another discussion in which …Chinese Whispers” has positive results. Using the ‘Chinese Whisper’ theory to explain the survival of memes (that is “units of cultural inheritance”5), Dawkins notes that “The details may wander idiosyncratically, but the essence passes down unmutated”.6 Citing a simple experiment, in which teams are to instruct their members successively on how to complete an origami figure, he argues that although not every team will produce a successful result, a significant number will succeed without any deterioration in accuracy. He explains that folding origami is a series of discrete actions, none of which is difficult in itself, and so it becomes a self-normalizing activity.7
This is significant for the copying of New Testament manuscripts. This was not, of course, an oral activity at all, and so the ‘Chinese Whispers’ model is not really analogous. The copying process was a written task that involved a deliberate copying of what was in front of the scribe. It was so mechanical that some scribes (that is, in general, not particularly focusing upon those who copied the New Testament manuscripts) were probably barely literate—as in the famous example mentioned by Ehrman.8 But if the relevance of Dawkins’s experiment is granted, then copying letters from one manuscript onto another involved a series of discrete actions that were also therefore self-normalizing. Perhaps on the ‘natural selection’ model of Chinese Whispers, illiteracy was not a hindrance, but actually a benefit, since it automatically made the task a skill, rather than a thought process! This experiment therefore confirms what we find in the textual tradition—namely, some ‘idiosyncratic wandering’, but an ‘essence passed down unmutated’.
Dealing with manuscript variation is not a special problem for the New Testament. It is thoroughly normal when ancient texts are preserved in several manuscripts to find variations amongst those manuscripts. It is also normal for textual critics to be apply some rationally constructed rules and processes to come up with the earliest and best readings with a high degree of probability. In this process, it is actually better to have more manuscripts, because this expands the evidence pool, which provides the basis of comparison. Thus the vast amount (on ancient history terms) of manuscripts that are available to the New Testament textual critic is not a curse, but a blessing.
Because of the careful preservation of its message through the manuscript tradition across centuries, today’s New Testament readers can be confident that they are now reading what was first written.
1 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, Transworld, London, 2007 (2006), p. 118. He draws upon Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why, HarperCollins, New York, 2005, p. 95.
2 Ehrman, p. 7.
3 ibid., p. 10.
4 ibid., p. 10.
5 Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 222.
6 ibid., p. 224.
7 ibid., p. 224-226.
8 Ehrman, pp. 38-39.
Hi Peter,
I agree largely with what you have written (though I have not read Dawkins or Ehrman). However, I still feel that your concluding sentence is a little too strong, especially considering that many evangelicals have much invested in the doctrine of inerrancy in relation to the original autographs.
To site one example I know of, Gordon Fee (a textual critic) argues that part of 1 Cor 14:33-35 did not belong to the original epistle (see his commentary for a summary of his argument). Now, not everyone agrees with Fee’s textual analysis, and nor would I expect them to, given that most Christians (Fee included) probably have vested interests in the content of the text under dispute. But the fact remains that, under the “rules” of textual criticism, some doubt is cast about its authenticity. Even though I am not qualified to adjudicate such matters, I have to acknowledge there remains dispute among the experts.
So where from here? I don’t think that this (and similar instances) casts doubt about the message of the NT as a whole. However, one still has to acknowledge that while confidence in the modern text can be asserted for the vast majority of the NT, there remains a few sections where the claim of absolute certainty should be withheld.
Peter Bolt,
You said that “several thousand manuscripts that have survived from ancient times”. To be fair we don’t have many manuscripts before 300AD. Do we have any Mark before 225AD?
Christians always claim that “today’s New Testament readers can be confident that they are now reading what was first written”. This of course is wrong as if you don’t know what the original text said you don’t know how well it was preserved.
Christians tend to defend copiers, but rarely do they talk how existing manuscripts were rewritten during their use. You can see online with naked eye the thousands of changes made to Codex Sinaiticus over time by multiple scribes. This shows the large scale of alterations (not scribal errors) and their attitude towards changes. Same with half of the Paul’s letters. Most scholars think half of them are forgeries, but Christians still talk about “Paul’s letters”. Surely Thessalonians 1 and 2 were not written by the same person.
Ehrman pointed out that the more difficult reading is often accepted by scholar, but not surprisingly easier reading is in modern Bibles. Mark 1:41 is an example of this.
Ehrman has also pointed out that consistently all early church fathers quote Luke 3:22 in a (theologically) different way how it is in modern Bibles. This is an example where scholars see an early theological change in the text which is still there and believe by Christians.
The same can be seen in all last verses of the gospels/letters. Those are filled with doctrines and early Church fathers never quote them. We can be pretty sure that those were early additions to the text and are still kept in.
you said:
“[the copying of New Testament manuscripts] was not, of course, an oral activity at all, and so the ‘Chinese Whispers’ model is not really analogous.”
I think Dawkins refers to the long period of time after Jesus death and composition of Mark. Legendary stories sprung up quickly and mutate during the transmission. So first we have Chinese whispers, then we have composition and addition to the text, and then we have theological changes in the text. This is the way the whole meaning of Eucharist was changed.
you said:
“It is thoroughly normal when ancient texts are preserved in several manuscripts to find variations amongst those manuscripts.”
This is a false analogy. Non-religious texts don’t have theological changes and most people don’t believe that people in Iliad actually came back to life like Bible believers. Religious texts have signs of doctrinal battles.
We can be confident that what we read today in the Bible is not what the early Christians believed or wrote.
Rob,
To dispose of something at the start, those that have too much invested in a notion of original autograph need to revise their theory of inspiration.
To deal with another: the rules of textual criticism need to be applied well and consistently, but, there are cases where evidential judgement takes people into different opinions. This is dealt with in the editions of the Greek New Testament by also providing a ‘grading’ (A,B,C) of the strength with which the reading has been adopted by the editorial committee. There is also a companion volume which further explains why the reading/grading was given. This makes textual decisions transparent for all to see (and to make other judgements should they be so led).
To your substantial point:
okay, granted. perhaps we should add a slight rider to the rhetorical flourish of the last sentence to allow for such occasional cases. I should point out, however, that speaking historically no claims can ever be made for ‘absolute certainty’ and this was not being claimed by the last sentence either. High probability is all you are going to get. But that is human life, that is history, and that is the beauty of a movement like the Christian movement, thoroughly based upon historical truth-claims.
Peter T.,
just time this morning to respond to a couple of your comments:
1. To be equally fair, number and age are two different things. It is equally misguided to hammer the gaps in the fossil record, or to hammer the gaps in the manuscript record. In both instances we are dealing with the exigencies of survival of evidence. The earliest manuscripts were written on papyrus – which, unlike leather for example, has a limited life-span. Leaving aside the NT manuscripts on other material, it is fair to say that what is truly remarkable is that (according to my UBS4) 97 papyrus manuscripts have actually survived at all.
There are five from the second century (earliest: P52, about AD 125); three from 2nd/3rd; 28 from 3rd; eight 3rd/4th; thirteen from 4th; eight from 4th/5th; one from 5th; four from 5th/6th; eight from 6th; six from 6th/7th; ten from 7th; two from 7th/8th; one from 8th.
Mark is not well represented amongst the earliest papyri, with fragments of several chapters in P45 (3rd), P84 (6th), and less than one chapter in P88 (4th). Fragments of two chapters are also in the vellum manuscript P Oxy 3 [=069] (5th). In the codices Mark is preserved in entirety (that is, to 16:8) in Sinaiticus (4th), A= Alexandrinus (5th), B=Vaticanus (4th), C (5th), and D = Bezae (5th).
2. You said, ‘This of course is wrong as if you don’t know what the original text said you don’t know how well it was preserved’.
I guess this therefore excludes your own final rhetorical flourish as well! Given the argument of the rest of the post, the ‘confidence’ is not that of absolute certainty—this is impossible in empirical historical studies—, but a confidence with a very high degree of probability following the normal rules of textual criticism as applied to ancient texts (if not moreso!). No special problem here. If everyone plays with the same goalposts, the NT scores highly.
3. On scribal alterations: The ‘naked eye’ doesn’t show you much until each is carefully examined for the ‘naked truth’. Then you see a very conservative scribal practice (as Ehrman knows, see Misquoting Jesus, 177). Some of those ‘alterations’, for example, include corrections to the mistakes of previous scribes. This indicates the conservative scribes still copied the text as they found it, but added a note when they thought it was wrong—because it differed from another manuscript they were aware of. Heb 1:3 provides an interesting case, where Codex Vaticanus has a different word to other manuscripts (a sound-alike), and a later scribe adds a note to his predecessor (!): ‘fool and knave! Leave the old reading and don’t change it!’ (see Misquoting Jesus, 56).
Hi Peter
Thanks for your response. I think we are basically on the same page here.
From what you have written here and based on your comments in your last post, you are happy to acknowledge that there is “messiness”, historical contingency, that all is not black and white. Given this, how does one responsibly advocate the cause of Christianity? I find a lot of preaching rather ‘triumphalistic’, adopting a rhetorical stance of unflinching certainty. (Much like the new athiests, for that matter.) I can’t relate to a style that is so buoyed with that kind of confidence, given that I have found the quest for this kind of certainty illusive.
I recognise that this question is beyond the scope of your post, so don’t feel obliged to answer it.
Peter Bolt,
1. Thanks for your clarification. If you compare:
“several thousand manuscripts from ancient times”
and
“One business card size fragment from 125AD and three (or perhaps up to 6) before 200AD fragments”
It does give a complete different picture. You blame Erhman for ‘awfulization’ the situation. Would you describe your original statement as fair and balanced?
Earliest Mark seems to be from around 225AD having six chapters. It would be interesting to see how Mark’s beginning and end was hundred years before that. I’m not sure what fossil record has to do with this. I’m pretty sure nobody deliberately changed those.
2. You said:
“I guess this therefore excludes your own final rhetorical flourish as well!”
I’m sorry but your logic does not follow. Manuscript evidence shows that the Bible has theological changes so Christian beliefs have changed. We don’t know how many doctrines and ideas in the manuscripts (and their importance) have changes, so we cannot exactly say how well the text is preserved.
If everyone plays with the same goalposts, the NT scores probably the lowest. It has more changes than any other ancient text and it has theological changes unlike most ancient texts. If you dispute this please name any ancient text that has changed more or have this many (theological) changes. Or alternatively show an ancient document that has been modified during its life time more than Codex Sinaiticus. Further more if everyone plays with the same goalposts Christians should accept the miracle claims of other religions, and not deny or attribute those to devil a priori.
3. You seem to down play the ‘naked eye’ changes in Codex Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus has whole paragraphs changed and shows several layers of changes by multiple people over long period of time.
You wrote a bit one sided quote what Ehrman wrote about scribal practice (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 177-8). Ehrman continues after your quote:
“on occasion [scribes] changed the text deliberately, making a “correction” to the text… We examined in the preceding chapter…changes relating to some of the theological controversies raging in the second and third centuries, when most of the changes of our textual tradition were made… when [deliberately scribal changes] happened, it had a profound effect on the text.”
“Fool and knave…” refers to an incorrect copying of one word (Strong G5342). One scribe added two extra letters “A” and “N”. You can see from the text that those two letters look different comparing to the surrounding letters. (Ehrman p. 43 picture might not be the best, check it online)
You did not address my argument about wholesale paragraph changes.
You said”
“deliberate changes that could be called ‘theological’ introduce things that are already taught elsewhere.”
So if Christians taught doctrines that were not in the Bible, those doctrines were ok to be written in to the Bible? Can we still add changes to the Bible if those doctrines are taught elsewhere? I guess you are not “Sola scriptura” guy but “scripture and tradition” person.
Peter T.
Apologies for delay.
1. My original statement was: ‘the Greek New Testament, which is itself an edited text compiled from several thousand manuscripts that have survived from ancient times’. This is simply a statement of fact (and so ‘fair and balanced’). All the manuscripts that have survived are examined and evaluated to compile the edited text we know as the GNT.
I am sorry you don’t understand the analogy with the fossil record: both fossils and manuscripts have the same problem—it is hard for them to survive.
2. So we don’t keep beating around the bush as we run around in circles, which ‘theological changes’ do you have in mind, at which texts? This is obviously a key issue for you. You have mentioned Luke 3:22 in this connection previously, is that all, or are there others that concern you?
The rationalist would say: ‘it is theological/religious, and so therefore it has been changed’. The empiricist would say, what is the data and how is it best accounted for? Has there been a change, if so, what is it? How is that change to be explained: nondeliberate or deliberate? If deliberate, what kind of reasoning might be discerned, linguistic, political, theological, …? Surely if a person (even an ancient scribe) is going to be accused of falsification to make a theological point, this needs to be demonstrated, not assumed? And surely if one scribe has done this, it is simple justice not to allow that one scribe to colour the reputation of all others until it is proven that they permitted, overlooked, allowed or encouraged such deliberate changes? These serious charges need more than assumption; they need substantiation.
As for the comparison with ancient texts. To lay down an alternative gauntlet: can you name some texts reporting on the same period of history (1st c.) with multiple manuscripts that have NOT got any variations? Any critical edition will discuss the textual history of the available manuscripts. Sometimes (and often) not that many have survived. There are far more available for the textual critic of the NT to work from, which introduces its own difficulties, for sure, but also has its advantages.
So, for example, if you wanted to use your business card size MS and its friends, you could use them as a ‘control group’ (as the oldest ones you are impressed by) and then compare how this group has been copied across the years. Let me know what you discover.
Whoah, didn’t see the miracles one coming in. Talk about changing goal posts – that one transposes us to a whole new sportsfield! What has this got to do with manuscripts? A good question, of course, but nothing to do with this post.
3. To be stronger: the ‘naked eye’ examination of an ancient manuscript and the notes surrounding its text doesn’t show you anything at all. You have to read what is there (the naked eye has trouble with the fact it is not in English, for starters), and evaluate why it is as it is. This is what is required for a careful assessment of evidence, listening to sources, not just ‘surface’ (and so a priori) decisions.
You are concerned about ‘whole paragraph’ changes in Sinaiticus (and I think this is the first time you have raised them, so I haven’t had a chance to address your argument about them until now). Once again, so we don’t keep talking in abstract generalities: what paragraphs are you concerned about? Let’s talk about them.
Peter Bolt,
No problem about the delay. We all are busy.
1. Christian Apologists state that “several thousand manuscripts from ancient times” but when I looked into it I found only few incomplete manuscripts within 200 years of Jesus. I also found early Church fathers from that time quoting verses in a different way and never mentioning some of the key doctrines. When apologists claim that their statement is a fact and so “fair and balanced” I have hard time believing anything they say. I know that I always need to check their claims to find my own balance view. I guess “Jesus died” is a fact and so “fair and balanced” summary of the Gospels
No, I don’t get your analogy to fossils. We have a beautiful record of fossils and several of those show nicely the continuous evolution of life (like the Burgess Shale). Gospels were reworked and previous versions were destroyed. Church ordered some texts to be destroyed and some kept. It is just a false analogy.
2. You said “To lay down an alternative gauntlet…”
Rather than sending me to a wild goose chase how about you first answer my questions and address my arguments. When I showed that your Ehrman quote about “conservative scribal practice” was only the half truth you did not even acknowledge it.
You said “as the oldest ones you are impressed by”
You are right. I’m more impressed by the 2nd century text than 15th century text. Generally scholars (I’m not a scholar) seem to get more excited about older manuscripts.
3. You said “To be stronger: the ‘naked eye’ examination of an ancient manuscript and the notes surrounding its text doesn’t show you anything at all.”
To be softer: I’m sorry but now I know you have no idea about how to inspect manuscripts and textual criticism. Even if you don’t know NT Greek (or OT Hebrew) you can learn and find out a lot about manuscripts with a “naked eye”.
Used font and material gives you clues of the ages type of the manuscript. Changes of handwriting tell you if more than one scribe wrote it. Style of manuscript tells you if it was for private or public use. Books included and their order in the manuscript can tell you things.
– Distance between letters can reveal made changes (Tacitus Annales 15:44 word Christianos is an example)
– Distance/text between words and the frequency that happen gives you clues what to check with non-visible light photography
– Empty spaces at the end of the line, after the paragraph and after the Gospel tell you plenty.
– Visible corrections and marginal word and code markers can tell you the frequency and location of changes or doubtful passages.
– Inspecting the end-of-the-book marker can reveal you a lot if you look old versions of Gospel of Mark
– Addition between lines for example can debunk the claim the authors of Dead Sea Scroll would destroy a manuscript if they made a mistake.
– You can sometimes see how many times text has been changed. For example Sinaiticus; did Jesus originally say “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”? (Luke 23:34)
http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_01/GA01_046b.jpg
(Note that sometimes Sinaiticus photos show the shadow of the reverse side, so always check the a and b sides together.)
I could go on and give more examples of all of those. The fact is you can find out plenty of info about the manuscripts and changes made with just reading English books and having a mapping of English verses and manuscript lines.
I would recommend anyone who does not know NT Greek to examine old manuscript with a NT Greek lexicon. It is a great way to learn NT Greek and the manuscripts at the same time. Public codex website often give you verse mapping and explanations of the manuscripts so it is easy to get started.
Peter T.,
Can you clarify what you mean by “I also found early Church fathers from that time quoting verses in a different way and never mentioning some of the key doctrines”?
What you’ve written suggests to me that you’re objecting to their interpretation of verses not the words themselves. That does not call into question the actual text and so appears to be largely irrelevant to a discussion of the manuscripts themselves, so perhaps I am not understanding you correctly at this point.
Your suggestion to take a look at Sinaiticus is definitely worthwhile. Aside from the manuscripts intrinsic interest, viewing it somewhat mitigates the impression you give regarding the extent of the alterations and edits. As you note, it is available online — for the convenience of anyone reading these comments see here. I would also be interested in you citing extensively altered portions of the text specifically.
The passage you refer to in Luke — Luke 23:34 — is an instructive example. The MS evidence is difficult to assess and so the authenticity of the verse is clearly questionable. Nonetheless, like the majority of textual uncertainties, the problem is largely academic: most readers agree that the words themselves are not inconsistent with Jesus’ words throughout the remainder of Luke, they are themselves reflected in the words of Stephen in Acts, and so they hardly undermine or even alter the message of the text!
Peter T.,
1. My full(er) statement was that the Greek NT: ‘is itself an edited text compiled from several thousand manuscripts that have survived from ancient times’.
Your personal disappointment at not having more older and more complete manuscripts available is certainly shared by many. Who wouldn’t want the ideal world we all like to imagine? But, we all have to accept disappointment and deal with what evidence we have. Textual criticism therefore rightly gives due weight to older manuscripts as it applies a number of well-tried ‘rules’ to help evaluate readings. Although differently weighted, the thousands of manuscripts are useful (and used) in compiling the edited text we call the Gk NT.
2. The question: why aren’t there more older and more complete manuscripts available? The answer: because papyrus has a hard time finding the right conditions to enable it to survive.
The question: why are there gaps in the fossil record? The answer: because animals have a hard time finding the right conditions in which to die to enable them to survive as fossils.
The question: why aren’t there more older and more complete manuscripts available?
Your answer #1: because the scribes deliberately changed the text for theological reasons. — how is that an answer to the question?
Your answer #2: because the Church ordered all the earliest and most complete manuscripts to be destroyed saying, we will only use some fragments and the fuller manuscripts that will come at a later time?
I guess that is a thesis, but now, how is it demonstrated?
3. On Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p.177—which I didn’t quote, but simply referred to: Nothing insidious or nastily selective here. If one half-truth (that Ehrman finds some difficulty with manuscripts being changed etc) has already been aired (see further up in the original post), then it is the other half-truth that needs some airplay. As an acknowledged expert in NT textual criticism Ehrman’s difficulties with some of the evidence, do not (cannot) overturn his recognition, and now I actually do quote (p.177), that ‘It is probably safe to say that the copying of early Christian texts was by and large a “conservative” process’; ‘the scribes … were intent on “conserving” the textual tradition they were passing on. Their ultimate concern was not to modify the tradition, but to preserve it for themselves and for those who would follow them’. Then he moves to discuss the changes that concern him, as you point out.
4. Thank you for giving me an education in naked eye textual criticism! But, which of those features you point out can show us that a change has been made from a deliberate theological agenda? Which of them shows that a forgery has been committed? As you know, this was the context of our discussion. The point is, to make decisions about such things requires actually reading the alterations and evaluating them.
Peter T.
While we wait for you to tell us which whole paragraphs you are concerned about, we may as well discuss the verse you refer to (Lk 23:34) as an illustration — with your link to the image.
Firstly, on the ‘naked eye’ examination this page (nor its page ‘a’) are a good example of countless changes being evident, for it looks remarkably clean, don’t you think?
Secondly, there is no indication in Lk 23:34 (3rd column, from the 10th line through to the obvious space) of these words having any problematic textual history – even though they are omitted in other manuscripts. They just appear as part of the text.
Thirdly, in terms of spaces left, there is nothing insidious here. When the verses are read, the space at the end of this line, as at the end of lines 1 and 5 above, are simply because of the change in thought, that is, there is an explanation from the CONTENT of the verses, not just the form.
Fourthly, if we examine the alterations clearly visible to the ‘naked eye’ on this page, there are three and each of them is exactly the same correction, namely, a word is re-inserted that the scribe has mistakenly omitted in copying (col 1, halfway down = v.19, adds back missing participle ‘being thrown’ [into prison]; col 2, ¼ down, adds back missing infinitive ‘to carry’; col 3, line 19, squeezes back in missing ‘and’).
Fifthly, if we go to side ‘a’ (since you mention the need to examine both sides, although for the life of me I don’t know what this has to do with either Lk 23:34 or the page that it is on) I spot six ‘naked eye’ alterations.
Five of them fall into the same category as on side ‘b’, ie words omitted in copying are added back in
• col 2, 13 up = 22:67, re-inserts ‘to you’;
• col 3 15 up =23:5, scribe has omitted half of an ending which contains a duplication (-eiei), and second half (-ei) is re-inserted;
• col 3, 14 lines up, missing participle ‘teaching’ re-inserted. Interesting to notice a ‘non naked eye’ change on this verse too: whereas GkNTs have ‘the people’ (laon), this manuscript has ‘the crowd’ (ochlon) – a simple vocabulary variation, perhaps also evidence of our careless scribe?;
• col 4, line 13 half way along = 23:9, re-insertion of the word ‘de’ which is a very weak connective, probably not even necessary to have, but re-inserted because it must have been in the exemplar;
• col 4, lines 22 =23:11, ‘him’ added back in; and line 28 (at left) the scribe has given a simple form ‘sent’, whereas the alteration adds back a prefix to give the more accurate compound ‘sent up’. Scribal corrector’s precision!
When compared to the edited version of the Gk NT, the sixth alteration on this page (col 1, 16 lines up = 22:58) adds the word ‘again’. Perhaps this a scribal ‘improvement’, thinking it is required for the sense of the story at that point. But if we go with the other evidence we have seen on these two pages, perhaps it is evidence that this word WAS there in the exemplar, accidentally omitted, then added back in on checking.
Conclusion: When these alterations spotted with the naked eye are actually read, there is nothing deliberate in them, let alone theological. When they are taken together, they add up to three things: 1. scribal copying was mechanical and mechanical mistakes could be made; 2. the process involved rechecking against the exemplar, and when an omission was discovered, it was re-inserted; 3. The checking and re-insertion appears to desire precision, rather than sloppiness.
Correction:
Par 2 on my last offering should read:
Firstly, on the ‘naked eye’ examination this page (nor its page ‘a’) IS NOT a good example of countless changes being evident, for it looks remarkably clean, don’t you think?
Martin Shields,
I’m not talking about changes of the interpretation but actual changes in the text. For example all early Church fathers quote Luke 3:22 as “this day have I begotten thee” (from Psalm 2.7). Modern Bibles has it “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” This is an example of changes of a verse motivated by theological battle (Did Jesus become God’s son at baptism or is he an eternal son? Eternal view won later as the text now reflects. I guess this was part of the process to make Jesus more divine.) Couple of manuscripts have “this day have I begotten thee” including interesting variant of Codex Bezae.
If you think that I gave a too negative view of Sinaiticus (4th century) remember that there were that four or more “correctors” (in the 4th, 6th and 7th century). The manuscript has numerous changes over its life time. If that does not concern you nothing will.
You said:
“most readers agree that the words themselves are not inconsistent with Jesus’ words throughout the remainder of Luke…”
Luke 23:34 is missing from the oldest manuscript we have and some later manuscripts don’t have it either. But how do you know what he said if you can’t trust the text? For example was he sent only for the lost sheep of Israel or for all nations? Both would be consistent with the message. Early followers of Jesus did not go to all nations. The verse (Matthew 28:19[-20a]) has multiple variations and nicely placed at the end of the text where a lot of later additions are placed.
Peter Bolt,
1. I’m not really disappointed about lack of early manuscripts. I just wanted the readers to understand that we have very few early documents from the time when the manuscripts were changed a lot (based on early Church father testimonies).
2. We don’t have vast amounts of old Christians papyri because low number of early Christians had relatively low number of early manuscripts and also like you mentioned papyrus does not last well. Most scribes copied the docs as well as they could (conservative process), but some small number of zealot arguing about theology occasionally changed a verse to support their position (these verses were again copied well by most scribes). Early on there almost no private copies of the bible, so Church fathers had full control of the text. These Church father needed to make sure manuscripts they did not like never got copied. When large numbers (>50) of copies of the Bible were commissioned this also gave an opportunity to standardise the text by a church leader. Sinaiticus also shows that some Bibles were changed while those were used.
3. You said:
“If one half-truth has already been aired, then it is the other half-truth that needs some airplay.”
If you refer to a page from the Ehrman’s book please present the whole truth of his view. Two half truths don’t seem to form a one full truth.
4. First you said:
“To be stronger: the ‘naked eye’ examination of an ancient manuscript and the notes surrounding its text doesn’t show you anything at all.”
when I refuted that you move the goal post to:
“But, which of those features you point out can show us that a change has been made from a deliberate theological agenda?”
I’m pretty sure if answer this with several examples then you move your objection again to other issues. I already showed that you don’t even find some of those alterations by just reading the text so one would not even be able to make decisions about the alterations in the first place.
You said:
“you mention the need to examine both sides, although for the life of me I don’t know what this has to do with either Lk 23:34 or the page that it is on”
This is a common problem inspecting digital files. Have a look at:
http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_01/GA01_031b.jpg
Notice how the text on the second column from the a-side is visible on b-side. You need to inspect both sides to know if barely visible text is a reflection from the other side or if it is a hint of erased correction of the text or something else.
Now go back to GA01_046b.jpg column 3 end of lines 1, 6 & 13 and compare those to the other side; GA01_046a.jpg column 2 beginning of lines 1, 6 & 13. Notice how the some shadows of the letters from a-side can be seen on b-side. You can also see some darker traces of letters on b-side which is not from the a-side. Some of this can be also seen on other lines. What do you think those are?
That aside, can we learn anything about Luke 23:24 from this manuscript also compared to earlier Papyrus 75? (Hint: check Nestle-Aland) You might have missed it by just reading the text as you state “they just appear as part of the text”
This might also get you closer to the disappearing and appearing paragraphs (~verses) issue.
Peter T.,
On Luke 3:22 you wrote:
You assume too much regarding motivation for the change here because yours is not the only possible explanation for the variation (although it is one possible explanation). The weight of Greek MS evidence is against the “begotten” (γενναω) reading, which appears in just one major MS (D). Furthermore, there are other passages in the Western text (of which D is an example) which show signs of similar harmonisation to the LXX. If the original is the version found in almost all Greek MSS, the version present in the fathers may have arisen from a desire to “correct” the text by conforming it to Ps 2:7 (cf. Acts 13:33).
Alternatively, if the “begotten” reading is original, it may not have been altered from a desire to present a particular theological viewpoint but in order to “correct” the text by conforming to the other gospels (cf. Matt 3:17; Mk 1:11). Interestingly, use of “begotten” language in Heb 1:5; 5:5 is not subject to any significant uncertainty and so appears to have been overlooked by those supposedly seeking to eschew the teaching from the NT. Likewise, the misunderstood μονογενης of John’s gospel is not subject to such emendation.
It is worth pointing out that Sinaiticus is not representative when it comes to the amount of scribal activity (to quote the site, “No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected”). In spite of this it is still important to cut through your rhetorical flourish and actually examine specific instances to determine more clearly the significance of the supposed problems.
You’ll have to substantiate this further, the critical apparatus in my GNT fails to highlight any significant discrepancies in these verses. The only question over the verse I can find is based on the omission of one clause in Eusebius, but that hardly qualifies as “multiple variations.” Otherwise it is universally attested in the MSS — Greek, Latin, other languages, and it is widely attested in other church fathers. (For more, see here.)
And just a quick comment on something you wrote to Peter B.:
Without close physical inspection of the manuscript it would be difficult to definitively account for all of these traces. They could feasibly be the result of ink offset rather than evidence of editorial changes to the text being copied.
Martin,
You said:
“You assume too much regarding motivation for the change here…”
If you read scholarly literature you notice this is not just my view.
you said:
“The weight of Greek MS evidence is against the “begotten””
This was the exact point I was making; it is a minority reading. (Same with Matthew 28:19 and Mark 1:41). However how do you explain that all early church fathers quite “begotten” also reading the context of the quotes?
You said:
“If the original is the version found in almost all Greek MSS, the version present in the fathers may have arisen from a desire to “correct” the text”
This sounds implausible because these church fathers were against adoptionist view. They would have corrected it other way around. I do feel that you are trying to defend the text by throwing possible explanations like a good apologist. The better approach could be trying to find the most likely solution.
Interestingly you write about my “rhetorical flourish”. Why don’t you point out where I did not use facts. Interestingly I seem to have corrected Christian claims in this thread, but I’m labelled with “rhetorical flourish”. Why don’t you call out Christians making incorrect claims? I also note that use “correct” as a synonym of forgery, oh well…
Sinaiticus might or might not be “representative”, but it is maybe the oldest full Bible we have. Alternatively we could talk about the oldest full Latin version of the Bible, Codex Fuldensis. Studying it is a similar eye opener.
RE Matthew 28:19:
Early Christians who travelled with Jesus did not go to all nations, so this is a candidate for later theological battle. Your link does not seem to be aware of Hebrew translation variation of this passage.
First discussion about the modern version of Christian trinity was around 177AD, but Matthew was written well before that. How can this be original? Eusebius wrote in several occasions “in my name” just like Acts. Your link stated implausible “The omission of the phrase can be explained as due to Eusebius’ tendency to abbreviate”. These are one of the key words of Christianity (In whose name do we baptise these people?) surely Eusebius quoted it right. I have never seen Christians abbreviating these words because it changes the meaning. The link also has “could have been formed as a result of harmonising”. If there were no issues why did it need to be harmonised?
Didache has both also stating “been baptized into the name of the Lord”.
You can also follow the early Church fathers: Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians shorter does not have it (chapter 9), but someone added it to the longer version. Someone also forged the Epistle to the Philippians in Ignatius’ name and put it into the text. Ireneaus seem to be the first to quote it.
I agree with your comment about close physical inspection of the Sinaiticus manuscript. That’s why non-visible light photography would be useful. Maybe you should call out the people who don’t think so…
I’m just re-subscribing to this interesting discussion. I accidentally hit the “stop receiving notifications” link.
Peter T.,
Regarding the variant reading of Luke 3:22 you wrote:
If you read scholarly literature you will note there is no consensus. Appeals to the motivation of scribes can run both ways, so your assessment of the implausibility of one explanation needs itself to be tested. As I indicated, other passages could be appropriated to support the adoptionist view but were left unaltered while, according to you, scribes felt at liberty to alter this particular text despite the fact that any knowledgeable reader would recognise the allusion to Psalm 2 which would then nonetheless undermine the efficacy of the change (following this line of reasoning).
The problem of motivation is exacerbated by your claim that “these church fathers were against adoptionist view.” Yet if scribes felt at liberty to alter the texts to have them endorse their particular theological ideologies, why didn’t the church fathers? And if the church fathers didn’t feel at liberty to correct texts when it suited their theology, why did the scribes think they could?
There are many other unanswered (and unanswerable) questions which have a significant impact on this discussion, and many undermine any certitude associated with decisions based on perceived motives of scribes. It is possible, for example, that the passage was quoted in discussion by an early Latin scholar from memory rather than copied from a manuscript, but that some confusion over the extent of the quotation from Ps 2 resulted in the passage being misquoted, and that this was then perpetuated through other Latin fathers as they interacted and absorbed the work of the first to make this mistake.
In the end my point is simply that the certitude with which you dismiss the possibility that “begotten” was not original seems unjustified and tendentious, particularly in view of the weight and distribution of the more widely attested reading.
There are various possible explanations (my suggestion above is just one of a number of possibilities).
Why the focus on a “full Bible”? A more appropriate response is to look to all available evidence. After all, Fuldensis only contains a harmonised gospel and is in Latin (back translation is always a somewhat hit-and-miss affair).
“Early Christians who travelled with Jesus” is a rather small group (who were actually Jews, the designation “Christian” was only used somewhat later). The claim may be true (it is difficult to be certain — how can you be so certain, do you have a way of tracking them all?), but your claim is so restrictive that you might make similar rhetorical mileage by suggesting that “no early Christians named ‘Fred’ went to all nations.” Nonetheless, early Christians did start to take the message of the gospel beyond the borders of Judea.
And no, I’m not aware of any significantly relevant “Hebrew translation variation of this passage.” There is the Shem Tov version which dates to the 14th century and forms part of an anti-Christian polemic — hardly the most reliable of sources. The few other Hebrew versions of Matthew are all similarly late (or even later), of uncertain provenance, and often form part of an anti-Christian polemic. Even counting these, they hardly warrant your claim of “multiple variations” if all you have is Eusebius and a few very late Hebrew translations! (As I read it this is an example of a “rhetorical flourish” since it is both hyperbolic and tendentious.)
To be strictly accurate here you would have to say that a sophisticated philosophical description of the Trinity began to be formulated around that time, and that needs to be distinguished from an acknowledgment of the deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the development of the doctrine was largely inspired by and derived from material in the NT (complemented by material in the OT), most or all of which was composed before that time.
What an interesting discussion. A little worrying for the uninitiated (initially), but I had the thought that this slightly imperfect process never caused the actual scribes to doubt the veracity of the text. Are we looking at the process with the eyes of faith or the eyes of doubt?
Also, although I am very grateful for the scholars like Peter who have studied the technical history of the Bible so I don’t have to do it, the comment about the first discussion of the trinity being in the second century AD shows just how far we often fall short in our reading of the Bible. The Trinity of God is built into the shape of everything in the Scriptures: the literary structures, the history, and the various holy architectures. To argue for this doctrine being a late addition requires an extreme case of literary myopia. Time to throw the modern goggles away, fellas. We can spend all our time arguing about the mess of threads on the back of the tapestry (however crucial this is), but a systematic typology (and analysis of literary structure) reveals that most of the clues and answers are actually on the front.
Martin Shields
You said:
“according to you, scribes felt at liberty to alter this particular text…”
Not so. Scribes just copied what they were shown. They were often lower ranked and knew less about theological details. You only needed one senior church person to modify one major bible (which was often copied) to get this changed. Once there were multiple versions of the passage church father could pick their favourite or harmonise (like Codex Bezae). Obviously this was a slow process as Saint Augustine still much later wrote “This day have I begotten Thee”. This is probably related to “begotten” disappearing from John 1:18 over the years.
You said:
“Early Christians who travelled with Jesus”… The claim may be true (it is difficult to be certain — how can you be so certain, do you have a way of tracking them all?)”
I don’t need to track them all. We have writing of James and Peter. You would think James, the early Christian leader, knew what Jesus taught.
You asked:
“Why the focus on a “full Bible” [Sinaiticus]?”
This was just an example. Sinaiticus type of Codex was a major production used by a major Church (It was quite expensive to produce). This was probably used a lot to copy text. One change in Sinaiticus would generate multiple copies of this change in other manuscripts.
Re Shem Tov: Yesterday you did not know it and argued that there were no variations. Now you claim that the variation I pointed to you is not relevant or reliable. This is the fallacy of moving the goal post. Somehow I think you have not studied Shem Tov. Interestingly Peter Bolt claimed 14th century Greek manuscript is “ancient”, but you call 14th century Hebrew manuscript as “late”. Oh well..
You could reject Shem Tov, but you do it for a wrong reason; “part of an anti-Christian polemic”. Medieval Jewish scribes were considered fairly good copiers after all. And of course it is anti-Christian polemic, but that is why it should be considered more reliable. What good is anti-Christian polemic if they didn’t get the text right? They had great motivation to get it right to debunk Christianity. According to your logic Christian anti-Islam writings are not reliable…
I guess three examples of variations, biblical tradition against the baptism formula (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 and 22:16) and the first part of the verse, plus no early church father quotes before Ireneaus does not count for anything.
How ever I must call you out on your statement:
“To be strictly accurate here you would have to say that a sophisticated philosophical description of the Trinity began to be formulated around that time [177AD]”
Could you point out any discussion about the Trinity before 177AD? Or any discussion of the deity of Holy Spirit? or is this what you call “rhetorical flourish” and “both hyperbolic and tendentious”?
Your statement:
“the development of the doctrine [of Trinity] was largely inspired by and derived from material in the NT… most or all of which was composed before that time [177AD].”
is obviously a circular argument.
Mike Bull,
Could you please explain your view why early Christians baptised in the name of Jesus instead of the Trinitarian formula? Could you also point out where the Holy Spirit is described as God in the Bible or early Christian writings? It looks like early Christian eye witnesses like James and Peter were not Trinitarians.
Hi Peter
The first instance of the phrase Spirit of God is in Genesis 1:2.
I could list the Trinitarian types through the OT, but that’s getting off topic. To claim that the apostles were not Trinitarian is to ignore the way the biblical writers communicate, and demand they do so as moderns.
The Trinitarian pattern is stamped right through the Bible at every level. The apostles understood these patterns, because not only do they use them in their writings, it explains their “strange” use of Old Testament allusions. Proof-texting, while important, isn’t enough, because this isn’t the way the Bible is written. It’s written in 3D and we insist on reading it with one eye.
The foreword to my book, by Peter Leithart, explains this in an introductory way:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/02/12/bible-matrix-update/
Kind regards,
Mike
Peter T.,
What evidence do you have to suggest that this was widespread? Most variations in manuscripts can be accounted for through errors in transmission (e.g. homoioteleuton, haplography, dittography, etc.). These are accidental scribal mistakes — so scribes patently did not simply copy what they were “shown.”
There’s also an apparent inconsistency in your argument. The primary source for your preferred reading is the Latin Fathers — the very people you claim were responsible for altering readings to suit their theological agendas. If your claims are correct, it is clear that most of them didn’t feel free to simply alter the text. If they were thus so conservative it would be more surprising that not one felt it appropriate to correct the change someone made to eliminate “begotten” from the text.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Most MSS include μονογενής in John 1:18, so how has it disappeared “over the years”? Of course it is now known that this didn’t mean “only begotten” in Greek either before or during the first century, so most good modern translations don’t render it with “begotten,” but that is entirely unrelated to the content of the text itself (for more detail see this paper).
Acts makes it very clear that the news of Jesus was to be disseminated beyond the confines of Judea and even Samaria — a great deal of what happens in Acts relates to the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles into the early Christian community. The fact that the very limited amount of material we have attributed to Peter and James does not explicitly refer to Gentile mission is largely irrelevant: epistles were occasional letters addressing specific concerns in particular contexts, not general statements of theology. Hence it is misguided to expect such letters to contain comprehensive statements of early Christian beliefs. Arguments from silence are not particularly compelling, particularly when there are good grounds for expecting silence!
continued…
You are mistaken on several fronts here. I didn’t, and still do not, consider 14th century translations of uncertain provenance employed in polemical contexts to have great merit in determining the original text for a document originally composed well over a millennium earlier! To be honest I only mentioned these late Hebrew translations because I was unaware of any other and didn’t think you would really base your argument on such dubious materials (particularly in light of your previous preference for early manuscripts — it sounds as though you dismiss late manuscripts unless they support your position)!
As such, I reject the notion that I have moved any goal posts. The translation is only about 150 years older than Tyndale’s English version, and few scholars appeal to that in order to determine the original Greek reading where manuscripts are unclear, and we know far more about the provenance and composition of his translation than we do about these late medieval Hebrew translations. Consequently I do not consider them relevant.
I reject it for a number of reasons, only one of which is the association with anti-Christian polemic. Furthermore, the argument “What good is anti-Christian polemic if they didn’t get the text right?” is spurious. The text is in Hebrew and so inaccessible to the vast majority of Christians, yet accessible to a larger proportion of the Jewish community of the time. Consequently it is targeted not at Christians, but at Jews. Assuming the translation was accurate, the content only tells us of the likely reading in the source manuscript. If the translator was aware of variants, he may have chosen the reading which most suited his purposes without any real concern over the more likely reading.
But it is also naive to claim that it would be ineffective if it was not right. Most people who’ve interacted with polemical material of any kind will agree that some Christian anti-Islamic claims, as well as some JW anti-Christian claims, and some atheist’s anti-religious claims (and so on) are not reliable. Or do you believe that all polemics are infallible? Members of the target audience are often either predisposed to believe false propaganda about their opponents or else not in a position to readily verify claims presented to them. If you throw enough mud, eventually some sticks! I’m sure we’ll see plenty of examples of this in the lead up to the coming election!
The doctrine of the Trinity is a summary of biblical teaching about God which affirms that there is one God, but that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Hence affirmation of any combination of these points indicates that the essential ideas later formalised in trinitarian doctrine pre-existed the formal philosophical development of the doctrine in the second and subsequent centuries. The absence of a specific label with which to summarise this particular aspect of the Christian doctrine of God in the first and early second centuries does not mean that the essential components of the doctrine were absent from Christian thought and belief at that time.
As I said, the NT clearly affirms the deity of Christ, and (I would argue) the OT anticipates the deity of the Messiah. The greatest difficulty in looking at patristic evidence lies in dating those texts usually placed in the late first and early second century (and I’m not a patristics expert, nor the son of a patristics expert).
Martin Shields,
You said:
“What evidence do you have to suggest that this [textual changes] was widespread?”
I did not suggest it was widespread among church fathers. Most changes were scribal mistakes like you said. I thought my intention was clear when I said that scribes just copied what they were shown, sorry. We were talking about theological changes, so let me make it clear; scribes just copied the theology they were shown. Who cares about spelling mistakes.
You said re Luke 3:23:
“There’s also an apparent inconsistency in your argument. The primary source for your preferred reading is the Latin Fathers — the very people you claim were responsible for altering readings to suit their theological agendas”
This is obviously not true. I wrote: “all early church fathers quote Luke 3:22 in…”. Not all church father were responsible of this change. I suggested that only one person was enough.
You said re Luke 3:23:
“If they were thus so conservative it would be more surprising that not one felt it appropriate to correct the change someone made to eliminate “begotten” from the text”
This is a straw man comment. As you can see from my writings about Sinaitius, church fathers tried to correct many verses of the manuscripts multiple times back and forth. Probably around 400AD it was already difficult to tell what the original text of some verses were. I’m sorry but your comments about Luke 3:23 did not make much sense to me.
Re James: Acts shows the mission to Gentiles but this was done by Paul. James stayed in Jerusalem and followed Jewish tradition including circumcision. If Jesus had advocated going to all nation, James would have done it and we would have textual and historical evidence of it (I didn’t get you argument of silence argument, sorry)
Re Shem Tov: I assume you don’t actually advocate that Shem to was translated in the 14th century. Surely not. And I don’t follow your argumentation that it is not reliable because it is used against Christians. The translation itself was not propaganda, just a text to understand the opponent. Jews had plenty of writings against Christianity, but translation document was surely made to understand Christianity. Sorry, I don’t find your arguments convincing. What benefit would they have gained by changing that verse according to you?
You said earlier:
“Otherwise [Matthew 28:19] is universally attested in the MSS — Greek, Latin, other languages…”
Now you write:
“To be honest I only mentioned these late Hebrew translations because I was unaware of any other”
Are you now saying your original statement was not true? Something is not right here, maybe I misunderstood your meaning.
Re Trinity: You did not point out any discussion about the Trinity before 177AD. It is a really weak speculation that Trinity existed even whey it absent from Christian thought and belief at that time. We have a lot of Christian writings before 177AD, but not a mention of today’s central Christian claim of Trinity. However what ultimately refutes your claim is that we have one church father talking about trinity before 177AD but it is not the modern Christian Trinity. Christians like to argue that the OT anticipates the deity of the Messiah, however the people who wrote the text disagree with you. The argument that Jews don’t understand Jewish writings as well as the later Christians always puzzles me. I guess we also have to then accept that Mormons can interpret the NT better than other Christians.
Thanks for the lengthy discussion. All the best.