Text And Tradition: The Role Of New Testament Manuscripts In Early Christian Studies

[Zakuska]

Article 1

Excellent Article...

Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies

The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures

Duke Divinity School

1997

Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text

Bart D. Ehrman

Some high lights...

2. Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.

7. We have, of course, come a long way since Mill. Today we have over fifty times as many MSS as he had--at last count, there were upwards of 5300 complete or fragmentary Greek copies--not to mention the thousands of MSS attesting the early translations of the NT into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Old Slavonic, etc., and the many thousands of quotations of the NT by church authors of the first few hundred years. What is particularly striking is that among the 5300+ Greek copies of the NT, with the exception of the smallest fragments, there are no two that are exactly alike in all their particulars.

8. No one knows for sure how many differences there are among our surviving witnesses, simply because no one has yet been able to count them all. The best estimates put the number at around 300,000, but perhaps it's better to put this figure in comparative terms. There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

9. As one might expect, however, these raw numbers are somewhat deceptive. For the vast majority of these textual differences are easily recognized as simple scribal mistakes, errors caused by carelessness, ineptitude, or fatigue. The single largest category of mistake is orthographic; an examination of almost any of our oldest Greek manuscripts will show that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today. Scribes can at least be excused on this score: they lived, after all, in a world that was for the most part without dictionaries, let alone spell check.

Hmmm.... Sounds like Joseph Smiths Scribes!

12. The three textual problems that I've chosen for this lecture occur in three different books of the New Testament. Each of them relates to the way Jesus himself is portrayed by the book's author; in each instance I will argue that the reading chosen by the United Bible Societies for their Greek New Testament, which is also the text of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and the text on which most modern English translations are based, and which most interpreters simply assume is probably accurate, is in fact wrong, and that the understanding of the three books of Mark, Luke, and Hebrews is, as a result, significantly affected. These are not trivial and unknown problems for NT scholars; some of you among us, especially my New Testament colleagues, are already aware of the problems surrounding Mark 1:41, where Jesus becomes incensed at a leper's request for healing; Luke 22:43-44, where he allegedly sweats blood before his betrayal and arrest; and Hebrews 2:9, where he is said to have died apart from God.

Conclusion

61. Let me take just one minute and 24 seconds to sum up what we have discovered. Establishing what an author wrote is an indispensible first step to determining what he or she meant. Within the pages of the New Testament there are textual variations that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved and that have profound effects, not just on a word here or there, but on the entire meaning of entire books and their portrayals of Jesus, e.g., the angry Jesus of Mark, the imperturbable Jesus of Luke, and the forsaken Jesus of Hebrews. These textual problems cannot simply be swept under the table and ignored. Commentators, interpreters, preachers, and general readers of the Bible must recognize their existence and realize the stakes involved in solving them.

62. But there is far more to the textual tradition of the New Testament than merely establishing what its authors actually wrote. There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings. This question of the modification of Scripture in the early Christian church will be the subject of my next lecture, as I try to show how scribes who were not altogether satisfied with what the New Testament books said modified their words, to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose Jews, pagans, heretics, and women.

[Zakuska]

Article 2

Conclusion

60. There are other kinds of scribal modifications that we could look at along similar lines, if we chose--e.g., changes that reflect theological issues other than christology or alterations that appear to be related to the ascetic practices emerging in the early Christian movement. Like scribal changes related to apologetic, anti-Jewish, and anti-women views that were sweeping through many of the Christian churches of the second century, these kinds of modifications have been left virtually untouched by textual scholars.

61. My time is running rather short, however, and rather than pursue these lines of inquiry here, I would like to conclude by reflecting for a moment on a somewhat broader issue. I have been trying to make a couple of basic points in these two lectures; one of my major theses, though, has remained more or less hidden as a kind of subtext for them both. In my conclusion I would like to raise it to the level of consciousness. To some extent I've wanted these lectures to show that even though it's not generally perceived this way, the study of the NT manuscripts can be both interesting and important for early Christian studies more generally.

62. I say that it's not generally perceived this way, and that's perhaps a bit of an understatement. Most people, even most NT scholars, typically consider textual criticism to be an arcane subdiscipline of little interest to anyone residing outside the rare and occasionally endangered species of textual critics themselves. A lot of the fault for this perception lies with my colleagues in the field, who in fact are among the worst you'll find anywhere at explaining why it is that what they do matters for anything, for example, for exegesis or historical reconstruction, let alone for the study of NT theology, the history of doctrine, or the social world of early Christianity.

63. No wonder that most of today's NT scholars, by their own admission, are not capable of rendering independent judgments concerning textual variants preserved in the tradition (I except my NT colleagues here, by the way; and they will for the most part agree, I think, with my opinion on this point). It strikes me as a pity that most doctoral candidates in New Testament are not trained even to use the apparatus of the standard Greek text, the Nestle-Aland 27th ed., that most divinity school students are not taught the fundamental problems of the textual tradition that they are expected to teach or preach, and that most of the laypersons in the churches to which the graduates of divinity school go are left completely unaware of the problems of the texts of the books that they themselves revere as Scripture.

64. In any event, I hope I've made a case for the fundamental importance of this kind of knowledge, and for why its continued neglect is not in anyone's best interest. It shouldn't be left to a small coterie of specialists. Significant issues surrounding NT exegesis, the development of early Christian theology, and the social history of the early church are intricately connected with decisions concerning the texts of the books that came to be considered by Christians as sacred scripture. The oldest form of the text must be established before it can be interpreted, and the later alterations of this text reveal significant moments in the use of these texts during the theological and social conflicts of the first three or four centuries of the Christian church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for posting this. I like the highlights so far and look forward to digging in later.

[katherine the great]

This is exactly why we have so many different Christian religions. As long as our communication is imperfect, we will interpret meaning in different ways.

[Zakuska]

Kathrine...

I like what BY had to say along these lines... from the discourse the critics forgot to read...

I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities, as we have to do with these benighted Lamanites; it would be of no benefit to talk to them as I am now speaking to you. Before you can enter into conversation with them and give them your ideas, you are under the necessity of condescending to their low estate, so far as communication is concerned, in order to exalt them.

You have to use the words they use, and address them in a manner to meet their capacities, in order to give them the knowledge you have to bestow. If an angel should come into this congregation, or visit any individual of it, and use the language he uses in heaven, what would we be benefitted? Not any, because we could not understand a word he said. When angels came to visit mortals, they have to condescend to and assume, more or less, the condition of mortals, they have to descend to our capacities in order to communicate with us. I make these remarks to show you that the kingdom of Heaven is not yet complete upon the earth. Why? Because the people are not prepared to receive it in its completeness, for they are not complete or perfect themselves.

The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little to-day and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive; if they do not, they are left in the shade, and the light which the Lord reveals will appear darkness to them, and the kingdom of heaven will travel on and leave them groping. Hence, if we wish to act upon the fulness of the knowledge that the Lord designs to reveal, little by little, to the inhabitants of the earth, we must improve upon every little as it is revealed.

When He tells you how to purify your hearts, purify them. He says to the nations, "I send unto you my servants, I raise up unto you a Prophet, and call upon you, O inhabitants of the earth, through him, to repent of your sins." Do the people believe it is right to repent of their sins? Yes. How shall they repent of them? By forsaking them. If they will do this, the Lord will teach them how to become Saints. In what manner? By calling upon them through His servants to be baptized for the remission of sins, if they want to have their sins remitted, if they wish to be washed and made clean.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_02/refJDvol2-48.html

[rhinomelon]

While I think Ehrman is great at explaining the nuts and bolts of textual criticism, I wouldn't swallow his conclusions or interpretations wholeheartedly, as you seem to be doing here. At least, read some responses to his work.

Here's a review of "Misquoting Jesus" from evangelical scholar Ben Witherington.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html

And a fuller review and response here, from David Wallace. I think they better underline the deficiencies in Ehrman's work that even I noticed while reading it.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Ehrman brings up good points, but by publishing this stuff more for the public, he creates the impression that what he's discovered is new and damaging to the mainstream Christian view of Scripture, instead of issues that believing scholars have known about for decades.

Take care, everyone

[Tanyan]

I remember approx 2-3 years ago sitting in the office of Mike Phelps [A Baptist] who then was the Director of the Anchient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont CA. along with 12-14 LDS Missionaries [On there Prep day] giving us all a 1-2 hr discussion on the anchient manusripts they had there on microfish. I asked him if the reliability of the anchient Biblical text as given adinfinentum was 99.7 % with the original Biblical text. He came out with a definate "No" that the number was closer to 80-85 % according to the studies done. But he held the Bible in Sacred High regard. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[rhinomelon]

I asked him if the reliability of the anchient Biblical text as given adinfinentum was 99.7 % with the original Biblical text. He came out with a definate "No" that the number was closer to 80-85 % according to the studies done. But he held the Bible in Sacred High regard. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

I would probably agree with that number, although I would point out that this is referring to the amount of the text in which it is relatively simple to discern what the original said. Other areas are more tricky, but there is still a large probability that we know what the original likely said in this instance. From J.P. Holding, who has a pretty good website on a variety of subjects:

Taking the Greek text that is used to construct the NIV version of the Bible (UBS GNT-3corr) as a baseline, the number of doubtful verses according to the biblical textual critics are 1,318. (out of 7947 verses)

And yet, as they try to dispute the earlier estimates of Westcott and Hort, the result is that of an elephant straining to give birth to a mouse. Moir and Earle are quoted as saying that modern textual critics have arrived at 95% certainty for what the original text said; and of the 5% remaining, no variant impacts Christian doctrine. The authors absurdly misread this as saying that "all Greek manuscripts are in essential agreement on at least 95% of the New Testament text," which is not being said at all. What is being said is that available data has allowed certain or sufficiently certain reconstructions for 95% of the text. The authors cannot seem to distinguish between the data in the pool and the conclusions drawn from that data.

Indeed their incompetence does not end there. They refer to the statistical table of the Alands (see above) concerning "variant-free verses" and act like what is left of verses with variants offers some sort of mysterious uncertainty about what the text actually said! In the end, however, the elephant continues to strain and they are only able to punch that 95% down to a mere (!) 83.5%, with still no effort to show that any of the remaining 16.5% relates to anything we ought to care about. In other words, even of their "16.5%" is right, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference if that 16.5% is filled with things like, did Paul say "I wish you well in the future" versus "I hope you had a good time at summer camp." Or, if it means stuff like the comma of 1 John, which we don't need because the doctrine it (supposedly) espouses is verified by a non-disputed text. Let us put it this way: Even if the authors have correctly arrived at their numbers, they have done little more than make it so that our mouths will not be quite so wide when they yawn. Until they deal with actual, specific problems in the textual history, their comments are merely flag-waving distractions; and they do not do so even in an update responding to this paragraph, in which they quote Metzger and Ehrman referring to "1,440 sets of variant readings, chosen especially for their exegetical significance..." and reference to 284 more -- but still, not one example of a specific we ought to care about. What they need to do, but never will do, is take one of those 1724 variant readings, describe it, and explain why it destroys some fundamental Christian doctrine.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

Kathrine...

I like what BY had to say along these lines... from the discourse the critics forgot to read...

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_02/refJDvol2-48.html

Agreed, a great discourse. See here, my good man.

[Zakuska]

Rhinomelon,

Elephants and Mice? I think your sources egregiously understate the facts...

A female elephants average weight and the average birth weight of a newborn elephant are...

Female average weight: 8,000 pounds | Weight at birth: 117 to 330 pounds (53 to 150 kilograms); average 232 pounds (105 kilograms)

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-elephant.html

Thus:

232 Lbs / 8,000 Lbs = 0.03 = 3%

X Lbs / 8,000 Lbs = 0.165 = 16.5%

Where: X = 1,320 Lbs

Talk about your MOUSE-INATORS!!!! (Ever see a one-ton mouse?)

Thats like an elephant giving birth to quintuplets all at the same time!

but still, not one example of a specific we ought to care about. What they need to do, but never will do, is take one of those 1724 variant readings, describe it, and explain why it destroys some fundamental Christian doctrine.

The very doctrine of Innfallability... is at stake here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

A. The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/help/features/faith.html

And Dr. Erhman gives 3 specific examples in his discourse.

And don't forget my sig line becuase it comes straight out of every piece of Anti-Mormon proganda I have ever had the misfortion to lay a hand on.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Well done and bravo. It brings to mind the 8th Article of Faith: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

[Tanyan]

While I think Ehrman is great at explaining the nuts and bolts of textual criticism, I wouldn't swallow his conclusions or interpretations wholeheartedly, as you seem to be doing here. At least, read some responses to his work.

Here's a review of "Misquoting Jesus" from evangelical scholar Ben Witherington.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/0...icism-bart.html

And a fuller review and response here, from David Wallace. I think they better underline the deficiencies in Ehrman's work that even I noticed while reading it.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Ehrman brings up good points, but by publishing this stuff more for the public, he creates the impression that what he's discovered is new and damaging to the mainstream Christian view of Scripture, instead of issues that believing scholars have known about for decades.

Take care, everyone

Who Reviews the Reviewers ?.

[rhinomelon]

And Dr. Erhman gives 3 specific examples in his discourse.

And don't forget my sig line becuase it comes straight out of every piece of Anti-Mormon proganda I have ever had the misfortion to lay a hand on.

I will have more later, but did you even read the reviews I posted? Ehrman's examples don't really affect much. So Jesus got angry at a leper; this happens elsewhere in the gospels, so having it show up here doesn't mean much. Ehrman saying that Jesus did not in fact sweat blood in Gethsemane doesn't affect any doctrine, as far as I know, although it would greatly impact the LDS belief that Christ began atoning for our sins by sweating blood in the garden. The Hebrews 2 passage, even if one accepts Ehrman's reading (which is not as compelling as you might think; read Wallace's review), still reconciles with mainstream Christian views of the crucifixion, as in "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The very doctrine of Innfallability... is at stake here.

How so? Textual inerrancy, maybe (if there were such a cardinal doctrine). But a text does not need to be perfect or textually inerrant in order to be infallible. If I say, "Rhinomelon got robbed yesterday," and someone writes that down and passes it on as "Rhinnomelon got robbed yesterday," the text is errant, the text is imperfect, but the overall message is infallibly presented.

So, how does Ehrman's reading of Luke help the unique LDS understanding of the atonement of Christ at all? Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Lets give your sources the benefit of the doubt here Rhino.

Even taking the 5% at the high end of certianty 95%...

X Lbs / 8,000 Lbs = 0.05 = 5%

Where: X = 400 Lbs

Thats still a pretty hefty Bouncing Baby Mous-ephant.

Next time I write we'll go over some of the items Dr. Erhman has found and I'll "show you the Money."

PS. Theres quite a bit of difference when the scribe writes... "Rhinomelon got robbed yesterday," vs "Rhinomelon got mobbed yesterday,"

Or an even better example... "Rhinomelon got mugged yesterday," vs "Rhinomelon got hugged yesterday," if you where a king it could mean the difference between a Royal Feast or an all out war.

[Bernard Gui]

While I think Ehrman is great at explaining the nuts and bolts of textual criticism, I wouldn't swallow his conclusions or interpretations wholeheartedly, as you seem to be doing here. At least, read some responses to his work.

Ehrman brings up good points, but by publishing this stuff more for the public, he creates the impression that what he's discovered is new and damaging to the mainstream Christian view of Scripture, instead of issues that believing scholars have known about for decades.

Reviewers are a dime a dozen. What does God have to say about it?

It's His book, after all.

Bernard

[rhinomelon]

PS. Theres quite a bit of difference when the scribe writes... "Rhinomelon got robbed yesterday," vs "Rhinomelon got mobbed yesterday,"

Or an even better example... "Rhinomelon got mugged yesterday," vs "Rhinomelon got hugged yesterday," if you where a king it could mean the difference between a Royal Feast or an all out war.

I agree there is a big difference. However, just the fact that there are these sorts of variants does not automatically mean that the original cannot be reconstructed. My earlier example was more referring to those variants in which it is easy to understand the original message. The vast majority of variants would fall into this category. For others, such as the ones you will no doubt bring up, other criteria and text critical techniques can then be used. For instance, simple context can often provide the key to variants like the ones you propose above. If the sentence after "Rhinomelon got robbed yesterday" was "The thief got away with his credit cards", then you know which reading is most likely the correct one.

Reviewers are a dime a dozen. What does God have to say about it?

It's His book, after all.

Zakuska and many LDS seem to think that Bart Ehrman's opinion ranks about that high.

God says that it's a textually errant, infallible in matters of teaching and practice, and more authoritative than any other book.

Take care, everyone

[SolarPowered]

God says that it's a textually errant, infallible in matters of teaching and practice, and more authoritative than any other book.

Not to be argumentative, but where exactly does He say that?

[Zakuska]

Thanks to Billy Boy over on BAM:

As one who regularly points out textual variants, I also routinely point out most of the variants are inconsequential. Which you seem to be arguing by quoting Wallace. By the way, I think Wallace is one of the foremost scholars on Greek grammar in the world, and is an excellent resource.

The problem is you don't apply the same standards to the Book of Mormon. The supposed 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon are 99% completely inconsequential, and are of the exact nature Wallace describes as unimportant for the Bible. There are at most 37 changes in the Book of Mormon which might have some theological or material impact on the story. All the other changes are minor changes to spelling or grammatical constructions of words or sentences.

The difference is the literalness that the Bible is said inspired and accurate, by adherents of the idea of Biblical Inerrancy. When Jesus says not a jot or tiddle will be lost, he was talking about the smallest objects of the Hebrew OT. The implication is extrapolated to the NT. About 97% of the text of the NT is completely settled, spelling and all. However, about 1/10th of the remaining 3% is somewhat up for grabs. Without even hitting on all of the "big" issues from a theological standpoint, the problem for Ehrman was that he bought into inerrancy, and it clearly has errors. So my great respect for Dr. Wallace notwithstanding, here are passages which are simply wrong or unknown what is correct:

1) 1 John 5:7-8 Was added to support the Trinity, as found in the King James Version (KJV). Only folks such as the KJ Only crowd continue to defend it, yet for nearly 300 years it stood unchallenged, because the manuscripts had not been found.

2) 2 Peter 3:10: At Christ's coming, will our works be "laid bare" or "burned up"? Big difference, and no one, I repeat, no one knows which words are original to the text.

3) Mark 7:4 Do the pharisees wash their cups, pots, kettles and "beds", or just the first three? Again, nobody knows.

4) Mark 7:9 Did the Pharisees "keep" or "establish" their own traditions in question? Nobody knows. Does it matter? Good question.

5) Mark 7:16 Recent manuscript discoveries indicate the verse should not be there. So it is omitted in modern translations (NIV, NRSV, etc.), but is in the KJV.

6) Mark 9:42 Do the little ones believe "in me" or just believe? This is important about identifying who they have faith in. No one knows. There is a parallel in Matthew, but they have excellent attestation to both it being there and it not being there. One is right, but which one?

7) Mark 10:7 Is a man supposed to leave father and mother "and be joined to his wife"? I certainly endorse the practice, but it is far from certain this is original to the text.

8 ) Mark 11:26 Scholars now agree the entire verse was wrongly put into the text used for the KJV. Let me quote it, then give you the complete quote from the scholars:

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Seems like pretty important doctrine, and we are not quibbling over spelling. Here is what the scholars say:

11:26 omit verse {A}

Although it might be thought that the sentence was accidentally omitted because of homoeoteleuton, its absence from early witnesses that represent all text-types makes it highly probable that the words were inserted by copyists in imitation of Mt 6.15. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed, Bruce Metzger, United Bible Societies, Stuttgart, 1994, page 93)

The {A} indicates the scholars judge it as certain this verse should not be included in scripture. Do we agree? Do we really know? Why was it included in the KJV if it is so obviously not original?

9) Finally, I want to cite these verses:

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luke 22:43-44)

No modern scholar is willing to say these verses were in the original Bible. In fact, they are not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible. But...we know they should be there. How? Because the Christians were quoting them a hundred years before the earliest manuscripts of the Bible containing Luke, which omit the verses, were written. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius and many other early writers say it was there. So the scholars respond by including the verses in the text but enclosing them in [[ ]] to make it clear it is not really original. Huh? So why is it in the body of the text again?

By the way, the Doctrine and Covenants also affirms this event took place. D&C 19:18.

In any event, to say Ehrman has no basis for criticizing the New Testament is silly. But as a Mormon, I am fine with the Bible. It's good enough. It doesn't need to be perfect to still convey the Gospel and the Spirit.

I think Ehrman has overstated the importance of the changes, if you operate from faith. But if you establish a line in the sand saying the Bible is inerrant, indeed, must be inerrant, then such passages as I have pointed out above are devastating to the argument. It clearly is not inerrant in its text, but it is in its inspiration.

Heres a list of 9 problems that ARE consiquencial, that we can discuss.

[rhinomelon]

I think that only #2, 4, and maybe six are actual difficult issues, at least in terms of the discussion (I think) we're having. You seem to be trying to convince me that the texts of the Bible contain errors and variants. That I acknowledge as complete fact. However, I still believe that (A) scholars are still able to reconstruct the original text with a great degree of accuracy, and ( that the variant readings left over affect no area of central Christian doctrine.

Even your large quote explained that scholars are agreed on many of these issues. So in my book, that only proves that there are variants (which I readily grant), not that these variants make the original text of the Bible impossible to discern. The Johannine Comma, for example, seems to pop up quite often in these discussions, even though hardly anyone accepts it as original, and omitting has no effect on the doctrine it relates to (the Trinity), since the passage was never used in the original definition or discussions surrounding the formulation of the doctrine. It's a non-issue, in other words.

Would you mind telling me how you believe the examples you quoted have a substantial effect (if any) on Christian doctrine? In other words, several of your examples have no real effect at all (like #1, 3, 5, 8, 9), others speak to doctrines that are taught elsewhere (like #6, 7). What is it that you are trying to convince me of?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

This is what I disagree with Rhino...

that the variant readings left over affect no area of central Christian doctrine.

They do.

[rhinomelon]

his is what I disagree with Rhino...

QUOTE

that the variant readings left over affect no area of central Christian doctrine.

They do.

Other than the "doctrine" of textual inerrancy, care to provide any concrete examples? Are there any variants in the above list you posted that, were these verse to be discounted, would leave a central Christian doctrine with no biblical support?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Well Lets Tackle these 3 Rhino...

2) 2 Peter 3:10: At Christ's coming, will our works be "laid bare" or "burned up"? Big difference, and no one, I repeat, no one knows which words are original to the text.

4) Mark 7:9 Did the Pharisees "keep" or "establish" their own traditions in question? Nobody knows. Does it

matter? Good question.

6) Mark 9:42 Do the little ones believe "in me" or just believe? This is important about identifying who they have faith in. No one knows. There is a parallel in Matthew, but they have excellent attestation to both it being there and it not being there. One is right, but which one?

I know what my vote is on 2.

I'd alos like to dicuss this...

Mark 1:41 and the Angry Jesus

13. The textual problem of Mark 1:41 occurs in the story of Jesus' healing a man with a skin disease. The surviving manuscripts preserve v. 41 in two different forms; I've included both variant readings for you here, italicized:

39 And he came preaching in their synagogues in all of Galilee and casting out the demons. 40 And a leper came to him beseeching him and saying to him, "If you wish, you are able to cleanse me." 41 And [feeling compassion (splagxnisqei\j)/becoming angry (o)rgisqei\j)], reaching out his hand, he touched him and said, "I wish, be cleansed." 42 And immediately the leprosy went out from him, and he was cleansed. 43 And rebuking him severely, immediately he cast him out 44 and said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing that which Moses commanded as a witness to them." 45 But when he went out he began to preach many things and to spread the word, so that he [Jesus] was no longer able to enter publicly into a city.

14. Most English translations render the beginning of v. 41 so as to emphasize Jesus' compassion for this poor outcast leper, "moved with compassion/filled with pity." In doing so, they are following the Greek text found in most of our manuscripts, splagxnisqei\j e)ktei/naj th\n xei=ra au)tou=, "feeling compassion, reaching out his hand." It is certainly easy to see why compassion might be called for in the situation. We don't know the precise nature of the man's disease--many commentators prefer to think of it as a scaly skin disorder rather than the kind of rotting flesh that we commonly associate with leprosy. In any event, he may well have fallen under the injunctions of the Torah that forbad "lepers" of any sort to live normal lives; they were to be isolated, cut off from the public, considered unclean (Leviticus 13-14). Moved with pity for such a one, Jesus reaches out a tender hand, touches his diseased flesh, and heals him.

15. The simple pathos and unproblematic emotion of the scene may well account for translators and interpreters, as a rule, not considering the alternative text found in some of our manuscripts. For the wording of one of our oldest witnesses, Codex Bezae, which is supported by three Old Latin manuscripts, is at first puzzling and wrenching. Here, rather than saying that Jesus felt compassion for the man, the text indicates that he became angry. In Greek it is a difference between the words splagxnisqei/j and o)rgisqei/j. Because of its attestation in both Greek and Latin witnesses, this reading is generally conceded by textual specialists to go back at least to the second century. Is it possible, though, that this in fact is what Mark himself wrote?

16. In many instances of textual variation, possibly most, we are safe in saying that when the vast majority of manuscripts have one reading and only a couple have another, the majority are probably right. But this is not always the case. Sometimes a couple or a few manuscripts appear to be right even when all the others disagree. In part this is because the vast majority of our manuscripts were produced hundreds and hundreds of years after the originals, and they themselves were copied not from the originals but from other much later copies. Once a change made its way into the manuscript tradition, it could be perpetuated until it became more commonly transmitted than the original wording. Both readings we are considering here are very ancient. Which one is original?

17. If Christian readers today were given the choice between these two readings, virtually everyone, no doubt, would choose the one more commonly attested in our manuscripts: Jesus felt pity for this man, and so he healed him. The other reading is hard to construe: what would it mean to say that Jesus felt angry? Isn't this in itself sufficient ground for assuming that Mark must have written splagxnisqei\j feeling compassion?

18. On the contrary, and this may indeed seem backwards at first, the fact that one of the readings makes such good sense and is easy to understand is precisely what makes some scholars suspect that it is wrong. For scribes also would have preferred the text to be simple to understand and nonproblematic. Which is more likely, that a scribe copying this text would change it to say that Jesus became wrathful instead of compassionate, or to say that Jesus became compassionate instead wrathful? When seen from this perspective, the latter is obviously more likely. o)rgisqei/j, became angry, is the more difficult reading and therefore more likely to be "original."

19. But there is even better evidence than this speculative question of which reading the scribes were likely to invent. As it turns out, we don't have any Greek manuscripts of Mark that contain this passage until the end of the fourth century, nearly 300 years after the book was produced. But we do have two authors that copied this story from within twenty years of its first production. Matthew and Luke have both taken this story over from Mark, their common source. It is striking that Matthew and Luke are virtually word for word the same as Mark in the leper's request and in Jesus' response in vv. 40-41. Which word, then, do they use to describe Jesus' reaction? Does he become compassionate or angry? Oddly enough, as has often been noted, Matthew and Luke both omit the word altogether.

20. If the text of Mark available to Matthew and Luke had used the term splagxnisqei\j, feeling compassion, why would each of them have omitted it? On only two other occasions in Mark's Gospel is Jesus explicitly described as compassionate: Mark 6:34, at the feeding of the 5000, and Mark 8:2, the feeding of the 4000. Luke completely recasts the first story and does not include the second. Matthew, however, has both stories and retains Mark's description of Jesus being compassionate on both occasions (14:14 [and 9:30]; 15:32). On three additional occasions in Matthew, and yet one other occasion in Luke, Jesus is explicitly described as compassionate, using this term (splagxni/zw). It's hard to imagine, then, why they both, independently of one another, would have omitted the term from the present account if they had found it in Mark.

21. What about the other option? What if both Matthew and Luke read in Mark's Gospel that Jesus became angry? Would they have been inclined to eliminate that emotion? There are in fact other occasions in which Jesus becomes angry in Mark. In each instance, Matthew and Luke have modified the accounts. In Mark 3:5 Jesus looks around "with anger" (met) o)rgh=j) at those in the synagogue who were watching to see if he'd heal the man with the withered hand. Luke has the verse almost the same as Mark, but he removes the reference to Jesus' anger. Matthew completely rewrites this section of the story and says nothing of Jesus' wrath. Similarly, in Mark 10:14 Jesus is aggravated at his disciples (different word: h)gana/kthsen) for not allowing people to bring their children to be blessed. Both Matthew and Luke have the story, often verbally the same, but both delete the reference to Jesus' anger (Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16).

22. In sum, Matthew and Luke have no qualms about describing Jesus as compassionate. But they never describe him as angry. In fact, whenever one of their sources, Mark, did so, they both independently rewrite the term out of their stories. Thus it's hard to understand why they would have removed splagxnisqei\j from the account of Jesus' healing of the leper but altogether easy to see why they might have wanted to remove o)rgisqei/j. Combined with the circumstance that the term is attested in a very ancient stream of our manuscript tradition and that scribes would have been unlikely to have created it out of the much more readily comprehensible splagxnisqei\j, it is becoming increasingly evident that Mark in fact described Jesus as angry when approached by the leper to be healed.

23. But one other issue must be emphasized before moving on. I've indicated that whereas Matthew and Luke have difficulty ascribing anger to Jesus, Mark has no problems at all doing so. I should point out that even in the present story, apart from the textual problem of v. 41, Jesus does not treat this poor leper with kid gloves. After he heals him, he "severely rebukes him" and "throws him out." These are literal renderings of the Greek words that are usually softened in translation. But they are harsh terms, used elsewhere in Mark always in contexts of violent conflict and aggression (e.g., when Jesus casts out demons). It's difficult to see why Jesus would harshly upbraid this person and cast him out if he feels compassion for him; but if he is angry, perhaps it makes better sense.

24. At what, though, would Jesus be angry? This is where the relationship of text and interpretation becomes critical. Some scholars who have preferred o)rgisqei/j (becoming angry) in this passage have come up with highly improbable interpretations, usually, in fact, with the goal of exonerating the emotion and making Jesus look compassionate when in fact they realize that the text says he became angry. And so one commentator argues that Jesus is angry with the state of the world that is full of disease; in other words, he loves the sick but hates the sickness. There's no textual basis for the interpretation, but it does have the virtue of making Jesus look good. Another interpreter argues that Jesus is angry because this leprous person had been alienated from society, overlooking the facts that the text doesn't say anything about the man being an outsider and that even if it assumes he was, it would not have been the fault of Jesus' society but of the Law of God (specifically the book of Leviticus). Another argues that in fact that is what Jesus is angry about, that the Law of Moses forces this kind of alienation. This interpretation ignores the fact that at the conclusion of the passage (v. 44) Jesus affirms the law of Moses and urges the former leper to observe it.

25. All of these interpretations have in common the desire to exonerate Jesus' anger and the decision to bypass the text in order to do so. Should we opt to do otherwise, what might we conclude? It seems to me there are two options, one that focuses more heavily on the immediate literary context of the passage and the other on its broader context.

26. First, in terms of the more immediate context. How is one struck by the portrayal of Jesus in the opening part of Mark's Gospel? Bracketing for a moment our own pre-conceptions of who Jesus was and simply reading this particular text, one has to admit that Jesus does not come off as the meek and mild, soft-featured, good shepherd of the stain-glassed window. Mark begins his Gospel by portraying Jesus as a physically and charismatically powerful authority figure who is not to be messed with. He is introduced by a wildman prophet in the wilderness; he is cast out from society to do battle in the wilderness with Satan and the wild beasts; he returns to call for urgent repentance in the face of the imminent coming of the judgment of God; he rips his followers away from their families; he overwhelms his audiences with his authority; he rebukes and overpowers demonic forces that can completely subdue mere mortals; he refuses to accede to popular demand, ignoring people who plead to have an audience with him. The only story in this opening chapter of Mark that hints at personal compassion is the healing of the mother-in-law of Simon Peter, sick in bed. But even that compassionate interpretation may be open to question. Some observers have wryly noted that after Jesus dispells her fever, she rises to serve them, presumably bringing them their evening meal.

27. Is it possible that Jesus is being portrayed in the opening scenes of this Gospel as a powerful figure with a strong will and an agenda of his own, a charismatic authority who doesn't like to be disturbed? It would certainly make sense of his response to the healed leper, whom he harshly rebukes and then casts out.

28. There is another explanation, though. For as I've indicated, Jesus does get angry elsewhere in this Gospel. The next time it happens is in chapter 3, which involves, strikingly, another healing story. Here Jesus is explicitly said to be angry at Pharisees, who think that he has no authority to heal the man with the crippled hand on the Sabbath.

29. In some ways an even closer parallel comes in a story in which Jesus' anger is not explicitly mentioned but is nonetheless evident. In Mark 9, when Jesus comes down from the Mount of Transfiguration with Peter, James, and John, he finds a crowd around his disciples and a desparate man in their midst, whose son is posssessed by a demon, and who explains the situation to Jesus and then appeals to him: "If you are able, have pity on us and help us." Jesus fires back an angry response, "If you are able? Everything is possible to the one who believes." The man grows even more desparate and pleads, "I believe, help my unbelief." Jesus then casts out the demon.

30. What is striking in these stories is that Jesus' evident anger erupts when someone doubts his willingness, ability, or divine authority to heal. Maybe this in fact is what is involved in the story of the leper. As in the story of Mark 9, someone approaches Jesus gingerly to ask: "If you are willing you are able to heal me." Jesus becomes angry. Of course he's willing, just as he is able and authorized. He heals the man and, still somewhat miffed, rebukes him sharply and throws him out.

31. There's a completely different feel to the story, given this way of construing it, a construal based on establishing the text as Mark appears to have written it. Mark, in places, portrays an angry Jesus.

Apparently... the Christians where white washing their history too. (Think History of the Church) I mean come on... Jesus Angry?!

[rhinomelon]

Apparently... the Christians where white washing their history too. (Think History of the Church) I mean come on... Jesus Angry?!

Wallace addresses this specific issue in his review. It's not really that groundshaking. It may go against some people's conceptions of "Jesus meek and mild", but elsewhere in Mark it shows Jesus getting angry. So even if this is the correct reading, I'm fine with it, either way.

4) Mark 7:9 Did the Pharisees "keep" or "establish" their own traditions in question? Nobody knows. Does it

matter? Good question.

I think the original poster had the right question. Does it matter? I don't think so. Why would it? Either way, their traditions (a) do not apply to Christians, and ( Jesus still condemned them.

6) Mark 9:42 Do the little ones believe "in me" or just believe? This is important about identifying who they have faith in. No one knows. There is a parallel in Matthew, but they have excellent attestation to both it being there and it not being there. One is right, but which one?

Both "believe" by itself and "believe in me" are scattered throughout the gospels. So if either iteration were introduced into the mix, what would change?

2) 2 Peter 3:10: At Christ's coming, will our works be "laid bare" or "burned up"? Big difference, and no one, I repeat, no one knows which words are original to the text.

This one is perhaps the only one that I would consider significant in some way. But again, either variant would fit into established Christian thinking. In fact, my first response to that particular example was, "Huh, I actually agree with both of those!" And actually, looking at the passage, I don't see that it has anything to do with our works at all! Where is this idea coming from?

Just out of curiosity, are you getting all these references from the KJV? Because if you are, I would recommend you look at a more recent translation, which would have better texts to work from. The New American Standard might be the best one, to a lesser extent the NIV.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Here's the relevant passage from Wallace regarding the angry Jesus in Mark:

Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesusâ?? anger in this passage, it changes our picture of Jesus in Mark significantly. In fact, this textual problem is his lead example in chapter 5 (â??Originals That Matterâ?), a chapter whose central thesis is that some variants â??affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.â?53 This thesis is overstated in general, and particularly for Markâ??s Gospel. In Mark 3.5 Jesus is said to be angryâ??wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. And in Mark 10.14 he is indignant at his disciples.

Ehrman, of course, knows this. In fact, he argues implicitly in the Hawthorne Festschrift that Jesusâ?? anger in Mark 1.41 perfectly fits into the picture that Mark elsewhere paints of Jesus. He says, for example, â??Mark described Jesus as angry, and, at least in this instance, scribes took offense. This comes as no surprise; apart from a fuller understanding of Markâ??s portrayal, Jesusâ?? anger is difficult to understand.â?54 Ehrman even lays out the fundamental principle that he sees running through Mark: â??Jesus is angered when anyone questions his authority or ability to healâ??or his desire to heal.â?55 Now, for sake of argument, letâ??s assume that not only is Ehrmanâ??s textual reconstruction correct, but his interpretation of ????????? in Mark 1.41 is correctâ??not only in that passage but in the totality of Markâ??s presentation of Jesus.56 If so, how then does an angry Jesus in 1.41 â??affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testamentâ?? According to Ehrmanâ??s own interpretation, ????????? only strengthens the image we see of Jesus in this Gospel by making it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his anger. If this reading is Exhibit A in Ehrmanâ??s fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little or nothing to alter the overall portrait of Jesus that Mark paints. Here is another instance, then, in which Ehrmanâ??s theological conclusion is more provocative than the evidence suggests.

Take care, everyone

[Drewm777]

I think you're both missing the point. What about all of the time between when the texts were written and when the earliest known manuscripts show up. What kinds of changes happened then, if any? How can we know?

I don't think we can know for certain.

See the article in Early Christians in Disarray on the transmission of the New Testament. It brings up some great questions with regards to that.

I personally think the Bible is mostly reliable, but it's mostly a matter of faith for me, and not science. The Book of Mormon tells us the Bible is true.