The Manuscript History
I want to briefly double back on our trip through Can We Trust the Gospels? to elaborate on a point that apparently wasn’t as clear as I thought.
I wrote that we can be confident that there were no significant changes in the Gospels early on because “…unless someone was actually able to track down and destroy all the originals, any changes in the Gospels would show up in the manuscript history. No changes like that appear.”
Vinny responded: “We don’t see the changes in the manuscript data from the first 100 years because there is virtually no such data.”
It took me a while to see that Vinny, and perhaps others, weren’t clear on what I was saying. (Sorry, everybody.) So let me go into a bit more detail.
Propagating Changes
When a document is copied by hand, it’s almost certain that a mistake will be made. And sometimes changes aren’t “mistakes” but intentional. Either way, once a change has been made to a text, there is a fork in the manuscript (ms) chain.
Both the original ms and the one with the change will be copied later. Each copy of the original will, hopefully, transmit the original message intact (though in reality there will be other errors).
Each copy of the changed ms will contain that change as well as any other errors.
As the copies are copied, we will see two groups form. The first will be based on the ms that was not changed; the second will be based on the corrupted text.
In the case of Greek NT manuscripts (mss), the two major families are the Alexandrian and Western textual traditions. At some point in the distant past, there were changes on one side of the Mediterranean than didn’t occur on the other; we see that by comparing the mss.
Protecting the Text by Criticizing It
When textual critics compare the various mss of the NT, they try to work backwards to determine what the originals probably said.
Though we might be tempted to say that we can’t see back beyond that 100 year gap between the autographs and the oldest extant mss, that’s not entirely true.
If someone making a copy of Matthew in 102AD inserted something – a story, a miracle, a phrase – there would be copies of Matthew that didn’t have the insertion. Though we would have neither the corrupted nor uncorrupted copies, we would see the change in later mss – the “children” of those earlier copies.
Modern textual scholars would be able to see this corruption. And they would do their best to filter it out by comparing with all the other mss.
Our Modern NT Text
I’ve never seen evidence of any great period of creativity and liberty with the NT text, but I can’t say I spend a lot of time pouring over Greek manuscripts.
But I can say that those that do are very certain about what the vast majority of the NT is supposed to say. Those parts that are really uncertain do not affect anything important. As Roberts put it, “If you actually took out of the Gospels every word that was text-critically uncertain, the impact on your understanding of Jesus would be negligible” (p34-5).
This has been a brief and oversimplified look at this topic. For a slightly more detailed look, I recommend An Introduction to Textual Criticism. A broader collection of references can be found at NTGateway.
13 comments:
How is Origen’s statement not evidence? Jerome also complained about the state of the manuscripts when he assembled the Vulgate in the fourth century.
Re: Origen, you (I presume) quoted Ehrman who quoted Metzger quoting Origen:
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”
I can't seem to find the original. It's supposed to come from Origen's commentary on Matthew, but I can't find it. It would be nice to see if context provides a better clue to what he was talking about, but such is life.
We do have his quote from Against Celsus, which Ehrman also provides, saying that heretics were distorting the NT.
What can we say about this?
1) No one has said this never occurred.
2) We have no idea how big a problem this was.
3) Origen's comment tells us
3.1) at least some early Christians were aware of it.
3.2) at least some early Christians didn't approve of it.
4) The erroneous mss either were destroyed some time in the past or we have them among our other mss and can sift them out.
This really changes nothing. What evidence do we have of great license with the texts in the past? Do these adulterated texts cause uncertainty about the actual words of the apostles?
Even Ehrman admits that we are pretty certain what the text is supposed to say in the vast majority of the NT.
1) No one has said this never occurred.
You kept saying there was “no evidence.”
2) We have no idea how big a problem this was.
I am not sure whether this is true or not. It’s possible that we have enough of Origen’s commentaries to get a decent idea of the scope of the problem he saw. I have to admit that the few variants I saw him discuss did not strike me as particularly dramatic. Unfortunately, the passage that Ehrman quotes doesn’t seem to be available in an English translation on-line. I would really like to see the context of that statement, too.
While we may be able to be sure how big the problem was, it is possible that scholars can make some intelligent statements about the range of possibilities.
3) Origen's comment tells us
3.1) at least some early Christians were aware of it.
3.2) at least some early Christians didn't approve of it.
That seems true.
4) The erroneous mss either were destroyed some time in the past or we have them among our other mss and can sift them out.
This is where I think you are wrong. We don’t know whether it was the erroneous manuscripts that were destroyed or the accurate ones. I think there are less than a couple of dozen manuscripts that date before Origen. Those are mostly fragmentary. Between Origen and Jerome’s Vulgate, I don’t think we have more than another hundred or so. These are more complete though.
The problem is that Jerome created the definitive text for the Roman Church. As a result, most of the later manuscripts were based on the readings that he thought were correct. Moreover, I would bet that earlier manuscripts that contained variants that Jerome rejected were most likely to be discarded. Most of the variants that were available to Jerome and Origen are not available to us to sift. The authoritative Alexandrian text was established earlier but the problem is the same. Many earlier branches did not survive. Only the good children were allowed to reproduce.
Oops! That middle paragraph should have read:
While we may be unable to be sure how big the problem was, it is possible that scholars can make some intelligent statements about the range of possibilities.
"No evidence" does not refer to intentional changes in the text. Everyone's pretty sure that happened.
What we have no evidence for is this early period you have hypothesized where the general populace felt free to change the text as they saw fit.
Jerome did not exist in a vacuum. He had access to things we no longer possess, and so did everyone else. The variants we see do not show that someone was out there creating stories about Jesus and inserting them into the Gospels. (Even the one passage in John, which many think is probably authentic, was treated as separate for some time before it somehow got stuck in the middle of John.)
I still think you're being unreasonably skeptical. All kinds of things can happen in the world, but barring evidence that they have actually occurred, it's pointless to spend too much time worrying about them, much less acting as if they actually occurred.
I certainly didn't intend to hypothesize anything about the "general populace" since most of it was probably illiterate anyway.
I don't see how there is anything "unreasonably skeptical" about acknowledging uncertainty when evidence is lacking. I think it is pretending certainty that is pointless.
I don't see how there is anything "unreasonably skeptical" about acknowledging uncertainty when evidence is lacking.
Is it guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?
Is it guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?
It’s neither Chris and that’s really my whole point. Burden of proof is a somewhat arbitrary rule that determines a winner in court when the evidence is too close too call. It’s kind of like the “tie goes to the runner” rule we used when we played baseball as kids. Such rules are only necessary when the process only allows for one out of two mutually exclusive outcomes.
The historian doesn’t have to employ those kinds of rules though because he isn’t limited to “true” or “false.” He is allowed to say “it’s too close too call” or “the sources aren’t good enough to express any certainty” or “our best guess is this but we really can’t eliminate other possibilities” or even “we just don’t really know what happened.”
In my opinion, much of apologetics consists of creating false dilemmas (or trilemmas as the case may be). The apologist seeks to present choices such as either accepting the gospels at face value or rejecting all knowledge of ancient history. Historical inquiry isn’t digital though. It’s analog. There are lots of legitimate choices between the extremes
"The historian doesn’t have to employ those kinds of rules though because he isn’t limited to “true” or “false.”"
But we're not talking about historians, are we? We're talking about people making life-altering decisions based on ancient texts.
You keep saying that it's fine for people to have blind faith so long as they don't think they have actual facts -- that's exactly what we're talking about here.
The texts are credible or they're not. "Indeterminant" is no different than "not credible" in the end.
Now, the question is whether we have evidence that people tampered with these texts to such a degree that we have no idea what the originals said. There is no evidence supporting that view. You can say that is "too close to call" if you want, but a lack of evidence is, to me, "not guilty."
But we're not talking about historians, are we? We're talking about people making life-altering decisions based on ancient texts.
I know Chris. That’s what drives me nuts!
People are making life altering decisions based on ancient texts. People are showing up at school board meetings in my community and demanding changes in the curriculum based on ancient texts. One man’s decision to take us to war in Iraq may have been based in no small part on an ancient text.
Of course these people aren’t so bad compared to others. Some people are trying to kill us based on their ancient texts. They flew airplanes into the World Trade Center based on their ancient texts. They blow up innocent women and children almost every day. They mutilate young girls. They do this because they believe that an ancient text accurately transmits a divine message.
If you were buying a house, you wouldn’t accept a deed that only had the seller’s hand written description of the land and any encumbrances on it. You would demand assurances in the form of title insurance that the description on the deed exactly matched the land that you thought you were purchasing and that the land was unencumbered by any liens. I don’t think you would say to yourself, “Gosh, I have no reason to think the guy has got it wrong.”
It may be true that texts are either credible or not, but the standard of credibility depends on the purpose to which it is being put. If that same land description were posted on a bulletin board at church, you would probably consider it more than credible enough to invest an hour or two to go take a look at the house. You might even consider it credible enough to make an offer on the house since your offer would be contingent on obtaining title insurance. But for plunking down your money without recourse, the exact same description would not be credible.
That’s why I am dumbfounded by apologists that tout the superiority of the Bible to other ancient texts. So what? Does anyone consult Homer before deciding who to marry? Would anyone support a different candidate for president if the words that Socrates spoke before he drank the hemlock weren’t really the words that Plato attributed to him? Would it matter if those words were actually the product of one of Plato’s students or some scribe who decided to spice up the passage a century later? The credibility of the biblical texts is not comparable to the credibility of other ancient texts because the uses to which the apologists want to put the Bible are not even remotely comparable.
I am perfectly willing to accept the text of the New Testament to the same extent and for the same purposes that I would accept any other ancient text. You wish to accept it to an extent and for purposes far beyond the extent to which you would accept any other ancient text and far beyond the extent and purposes for which you believe people of non-biblical faiths religions should accept their ancient texts. You do this by (what seems to me to be) arbitrarily defining the question as “whether we have evidence that people tampered with these texts to such a degree that we have no idea what the originals said” rather than “whether we have evidence that scribal practices in the first century accurately and faithfully transmitted the texts.”
You do this by ... arbitrarily defining the question as “whether we have evidence that people tampered with these texts to such a degree that we have no idea what the originals said” rather than “whether we have evidence that scribal practices in the first century accurately and faithfully transmitted the texts.”
No, I'm quite happy with the second question, and I think we can answer it in the affirmative. But you challenge that with no data to support your suspicions. Thus we end up at the first question.
BTW,
"That’s why I am dumbfounded by apologists that tout the superiority of the Bible to other ancient texts. So what?"
I agree. While the information may be useful for perspective, the number of extant copies of Homer has no bearing on whether or not we can trust what we have of the NT. You'll notice I kind of skipped over that part of Roberts' book.
You have the same dearth of manuscript evidence whether you are trying to establish the stability of the texts or the variability of the texts. If "indeterminate" isn't a permissible choice, then it's simply a matter of choosing your default position.
Post a Comment