“The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism” Metzger & Ehrman pp. 300-343
How is textual criticism to be done? How does one reasonably determine what may have been an original reading when presented with multiple variations? Metzger and Ehrman start out the chapter with two important criteria. First, (p. 300) “choose the reading that best explains the origin of the others.” Second, see if there are factors, even undocumented factors, which can account for the rise of a variant. For instance, could an abbreviation have been misconstrued as a word, thus creating something unintelligible in itself?
I’ll abbreviate a list of considerations from pp. 302-304.
1) External evidence
a) date
b) geographical distribution
c) genealogical relationship
2) Internal evidence
a) transcriptional probabilities of errors
i. more difficult reading preferred
ii. shorter reading preferred
iii. in parallel passages a reading that differs from the other is preferred
iv. less familiar, less refined usage generally preferred
b) intrinsic probabilities
i. author’s overall style, vocabulary, theology
ii. immediate context
iii. usage of author elsewhere
iv. Aramaic background of Jesus’ teaching
v. Mark as priority
vi. influence of Christian community
The remainder of the book consists of specific applications of the above considerations. Metzger and Ehrman conclude that textual criticism is a difficult business as it requires the critic to take extant information into account to explain a manuscript which we no longer have. We consider information that is visible to us and information which is not visible in attempting to determine the most reliable text.
Showing posts with label Metzger and Ehrman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metzger and Ehrman. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
“History of the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament”
“History of the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament” Metzger & Ehrman pp. 272-299
Metzger and Ehrman begin with a discussion of the difficulties of establishing the original text of the New Testament documents. Since there are 27 different books in the New Testament and they differ in authorship, time of composition, original recipient, and many other features, every book must be treated individually. Early Christian literature is also challenging to deal with due to its means of dissemination. Metzger and Ehrman also suggest problems arising with the text at an early date, when on p. 275 they say, “The earliest copyists would not have been trained professionals who made copies for a living but simply literate members of a congregation who had the time and ability to do the job. Since most, if not all, of them would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.” This statement, of course, is self-refuting. Amateurs who chose to do something which they are able to do, being literate, and who have adequate time to devote to the task are unlikely to make a large number of errors. However, Metzger and Ehrman do observe that early copies tend to diverge from one another more widely than later copies, presumably due to improvements in the quality of copyists.
Copies of the New Testament text seem to divide into various text types. The “Western” text, where it shows individuality, tends to paraphrase, occasionally harmonizing information from other similar sources and occasionally inserting or omitting words, clauses, or sentences. The “Alexandrian” text tends to be highly consistent, but also tends to make “improvements” in the grammar or style of the original. The “Byzantine” text has a tendency to be very smooth and lucid, without harshness in the language. It seems that editors chose among variant readings to make the smoothest and most readable text possible.
Modern text critics have examined text transmission for six chief areas other than identification of the most reliable reading. Metzger and Ehrman discuss the study of text transmission and its relationship to doctrinal disputes, Jewish-Christian relations, oppression of women, apologetics, asceticism, and use of magic or fortune-telling.
While we can gain insight into a world of issues through study of textual transmission, I am reminded by this chapter that the primary reason to study the text of the New Testament is to see how God has revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus. All other issues, such as tracking what different scribes did to a text in order to defend their points of view, are secondary.
Metzger and Ehrman begin with a discussion of the difficulties of establishing the original text of the New Testament documents. Since there are 27 different books in the New Testament and they differ in authorship, time of composition, original recipient, and many other features, every book must be treated individually. Early Christian literature is also challenging to deal with due to its means of dissemination. Metzger and Ehrman also suggest problems arising with the text at an early date, when on p. 275 they say, “The earliest copyists would not have been trained professionals who made copies for a living but simply literate members of a congregation who had the time and ability to do the job. Since most, if not all, of them would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.” This statement, of course, is self-refuting. Amateurs who chose to do something which they are able to do, being literate, and who have adequate time to devote to the task are unlikely to make a large number of errors. However, Metzger and Ehrman do observe that early copies tend to diverge from one another more widely than later copies, presumably due to improvements in the quality of copyists.
Copies of the New Testament text seem to divide into various text types. The “Western” text, where it shows individuality, tends to paraphrase, occasionally harmonizing information from other similar sources and occasionally inserting or omitting words, clauses, or sentences. The “Alexandrian” text tends to be highly consistent, but also tends to make “improvements” in the grammar or style of the original. The “Byzantine” text has a tendency to be very smooth and lucid, without harshness in the language. It seems that editors chose among variant readings to make the smoothest and most readable text possible.
Modern text critics have examined text transmission for six chief areas other than identification of the most reliable reading. Metzger and Ehrman discuss the study of text transmission and its relationship to doctrinal disputes, Jewish-Christian relations, oppression of women, apologetics, asceticism, and use of magic or fortune-telling.
While we can gain insight into a world of issues through study of textual transmission, I am reminded by this chapter that the primary reason to study the text of the New Testament is to see how God has revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus. All other issues, such as tracking what different scribes did to a text in order to defend their points of view, are secondary.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Causes of Error in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament
“The Causes of Error in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament” Metzger & Ehrman pp. 250-271
In this chapter Metzger and Ehrman detail a variety of ways in which manuscripts can be altered as they are copied. The chapter is divided into two sections, unintentional and intentional changes, each with a number of sub-points, illustrated with examples found in biblical manuscripts. I’ll summarize each in order.
UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES
1) Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight
Without corrective eyewear it is very easy to mistake some letter combinations for some others. For instance, gamma followed by iota can easily be read as a pi. Many abbreviated forms of words can look like other words as well.
2) Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing
It is quite easy for even a careful listener to make a mistake in transcription by writing a homophone. Of course, not only homophones arise here, but we also can find instances of scribal errors which arose from a scribe conflating multiple words into one because the audible combinations of sounds were very similar.
3) Errors of the Mind
This type of error certainly accounts for many of the variant readings in which synonyms or very similar sounding words may be used in a text. For instance, the substitution of an adverb for an adjective is not uncommon, use of a different prepositions which bear similar force, and the like are common errors. These often can arise when a scribe is attempting to remember a phrase or even a sentence while writing it. Occasionally we also see cases of scribes bringing in statements from elsewhere in Scripture, presumably because the passages are similar.
4) Errors of Judgment
In these errors, a scribe brings a marginal note or other item into the text. In most instances this surely happens because of inattention to detail. Metzger and Ehrman detail this issue in an egregious form in Codex 109, in which two columns of Luke’s genealogy of Jesus are conflated, making Phares the source of the entire human race and God the son of Aram. This is cited as an egregious example. Most examples are of considerably less importance.
INTENTIONAL CHANGES
1) Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar
Some of the Greek style found in the New Testament does not reflect the most sophisticated grammatical usage. There are instances where it appears that scribes have attempted to correct some of the grammatical oddities, particularly in Revelation.
2) Harmonistic Corruptions
It is not uncommon to find instances of the wording of an account in one gospel being altered to match that of another gospel more closely or for the wording of a quotation of an Old Testament passage being adjusted to match that of the Septuagint. Occasionally quotations will also be expanded to provide what the scribe considered to be adequate context.
3) Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts
The classic example of this phenomenon is conjoining “scribes” and “Pharisees.” It is easy to see instances where some manuscripts say “Jesus” while others say “Jesus Christ” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.”
4) Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties
There are several instances in the New Testament when a quotation is made and is attributed to a different prophet than the one where it is found. A common variant reading is the correction of the attribution or a name being removed so that it is attributed to “the prophet.” Another example of this type of error is adjusting the location of an item or the time when an event took place to be more precise than the original author was.
5) Conflation of Readings
This is similar to #3 above, but takes different readings and actually combines them. For instance, when one account says people are “praising” God and another says they are “glorifying” God, this error would result in a text that says they are “praising and glorifying” God.
6) Alterations Made Because of Doctrinal Considerations
There is evidence that sometimes scribes would omit certain details from a passage of Scripture or would add details in order to protect certain doctrines. For instance, occasionally Joseph and Mary are referred to as Jesus’ parents. This would not be a desirable statement from the point of view which needs to defend Jesus’ divine parentage. One reading of Luke 23:32 could indicate that Jesus was led away with “two other criminals,” implying that he was a criminal. The word “other” was omitted relatively frequently.
7) Addition of Miscellaneous Details
Some texts add statements identifying individuals in more detail. Other details may be added to the text as well, such as an explanation of an action which otherwise would seem slightly oblique. The threefold sanctus in Revelation 4:8 is sometimes multiplied to advance the idea of God’s holiness.
Metzger and Ehrman close the chapter by observing that despite the many ways scribes can make errors in their copies of the text, the New Testament text shows a great deal of care in the history of transmission.
In this chapter Metzger and Ehrman detail a variety of ways in which manuscripts can be altered as they are copied. The chapter is divided into two sections, unintentional and intentional changes, each with a number of sub-points, illustrated with examples found in biblical manuscripts. I’ll summarize each in order.
UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES
1) Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight
Without corrective eyewear it is very easy to mistake some letter combinations for some others. For instance, gamma followed by iota can easily be read as a pi. Many abbreviated forms of words can look like other words as well.
2) Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing
It is quite easy for even a careful listener to make a mistake in transcription by writing a homophone. Of course, not only homophones arise here, but we also can find instances of scribal errors which arose from a scribe conflating multiple words into one because the audible combinations of sounds were very similar.
3) Errors of the Mind
This type of error certainly accounts for many of the variant readings in which synonyms or very similar sounding words may be used in a text. For instance, the substitution of an adverb for an adjective is not uncommon, use of a different prepositions which bear similar force, and the like are common errors. These often can arise when a scribe is attempting to remember a phrase or even a sentence while writing it. Occasionally we also see cases of scribes bringing in statements from elsewhere in Scripture, presumably because the passages are similar.
4) Errors of Judgment
In these errors, a scribe brings a marginal note or other item into the text. In most instances this surely happens because of inattention to detail. Metzger and Ehrman detail this issue in an egregious form in Codex 109, in which two columns of Luke’s genealogy of Jesus are conflated, making Phares the source of the entire human race and God the son of Aram. This is cited as an egregious example. Most examples are of considerably less importance.
INTENTIONAL CHANGES
1) Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar
Some of the Greek style found in the New Testament does not reflect the most sophisticated grammatical usage. There are instances where it appears that scribes have attempted to correct some of the grammatical oddities, particularly in Revelation.
2) Harmonistic Corruptions
It is not uncommon to find instances of the wording of an account in one gospel being altered to match that of another gospel more closely or for the wording of a quotation of an Old Testament passage being adjusted to match that of the Septuagint. Occasionally quotations will also be expanded to provide what the scribe considered to be adequate context.
3) Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts
The classic example of this phenomenon is conjoining “scribes” and “Pharisees.” It is easy to see instances where some manuscripts say “Jesus” while others say “Jesus Christ” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.”
4) Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties
There are several instances in the New Testament when a quotation is made and is attributed to a different prophet than the one where it is found. A common variant reading is the correction of the attribution or a name being removed so that it is attributed to “the prophet.” Another example of this type of error is adjusting the location of an item or the time when an event took place to be more precise than the original author was.
5) Conflation of Readings
This is similar to #3 above, but takes different readings and actually combines them. For instance, when one account says people are “praising” God and another says they are “glorifying” God, this error would result in a text that says they are “praising and glorifying” God.
6) Alterations Made Because of Doctrinal Considerations
There is evidence that sometimes scribes would omit certain details from a passage of Scripture or would add details in order to protect certain doctrines. For instance, occasionally Joseph and Mary are referred to as Jesus’ parents. This would not be a desirable statement from the point of view which needs to defend Jesus’ divine parentage. One reading of Luke 23:32 could indicate that Jesus was led away with “two other criminals,” implying that he was a criminal. The word “other” was omitted relatively frequently.
7) Addition of Miscellaneous Details
Some texts add statements identifying individuals in more detail. Other details may be added to the text as well, such as an explanation of an action which otherwise would seem slightly oblique. The threefold sanctus in Revelation 4:8 is sometimes multiplied to advance the idea of God’s holiness.
Metzger and Ehrman close the chapter by observing that despite the many ways scribes can make errors in their copies of the text, the New Testament text shows a great deal of care in the history of transmission.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Modern Methods of Textual Criticism
"Modern Methods of Textual Criticism" Metzger & Ehrman pp. 205-249
Classical textual criticism has two important processes, recension and emendation. p. 205 "Recension is the selection, after examination of all available material, of the most trustworthy evidence on which to base a text. Emendation is the attempt to eliminate the errors that are found even in the best manuscripts." Through history scholars have attempted various ways of dealing with the biblical texts. Yet one of the most important developments in biblical criticism has been to determine families of texts. We find that the source document used to make other copies may bring us back toward authoritative early reading. p. 207 "The basic principle that underlies the process of constructing a stemma, or family tree, of manuscripts is that, apart from accident, identity of reading implies identity of origin." Metzger and Ehrman discuss the implications of tracing families of texts, pointing out that one text may have resulted in a large number of copies, but the large number of copies does not necessarily imply the original source document is to be preferred over another source document which may have had relatively few copies made.
In more modern times there have been reactions against the classical methods. One scholar who rejected the methodology of genealogical studies of manuscripts was Joseph Bedier, who (p. 210) "became distrustful of the genealogical method, (1) because in practice it has almost always resulted in the construction of a tree with two branches of witnesses . . . and (2) because one can often argue well for several different stemmata of classification of manuscripts." Metzger and Ehrman suggest in response to Bedier's second criticism that manuscripts remain living entities, as they are copied and recopied, corrected, and commented upon. This means that they are often open to variations. In response to Bedier's first criticism, on p. 211 Metzger and Ehrman observe that "a much more innocent explanation lies behind the circumstance that almost all stemmata result in two branches than the imputation of deliberate suppression or distortion of evidence. From the standpoint of mathematics, as Maas observed, 'We must remind ourselves that of the twenty-two types of stemma possible where three witnesses exist, only one has three branches.'"
Classical scholarship held as an axiom that the shorter reading was generally the original one. Albert C. Clark challenged this view in 1914 when a study of Cicero persuaded him that (p. 212) "accidental omission was a much more common fault than deliberate interpolation by scribes." He suggested that the longer reading might be more reliable, thus suggesting that the Western text rejected by Westcott and Hort was better than the Neutral text they embraced. Later Clark tended to abandon his theory and proposed that Luke had prepared two different editions of Acts. The methodology remains open to debate.
Burnett Hillman Streeter tended to use classical methodology in a positive manner, publishing works in the early 20th century. p. 215 "Building on Westcott and Hort's classic work, Streeter refined their methodology in light of the acquisition of new manuscript evidence since 1881 . . . Streeter emphasized the importance of isolating the forms of text that were current at the great centers of ancient Christianity." Streeter thought he was able to identify three different forms of text and he postulated a fourth text which has passed into the others in mixture with their texts. He suggested that readings after the fifth century could safely be ignored unless they differed from the Byzantine text. Generally Streeters methodology and conclusions have fallen out of favor.
p. 218 "The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages." Metzger and Ehrman spend some time discussing the conclusions and arguments of those who favor the Textus Receptus as the most reliable biblical text.
p. 222-223 "Several scholars have directed primary attention to the individual variants themselves in an effort to find which will account best for the rise of the others. This process has been given various names. Sometimes it has been referred to as 'rational criticism.' . . . in its application the textual critic pays less attention to questions of date and families of manuscripts than to internal or contextual considerations." Eclecticism can be taken to greater or lesser levels. Different scholars consider different texts as more or less worthy of inclusion in their eclectic editions.
Conjectural emendation has also existed. pp. 226-227 "If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, that the documents supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been . . . Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests that are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable and (2) it must account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text." One of the difficulties seen in this method has been the tendency to propose a reading which cannot be documented where there are other readings which can make sense.
Recent scholarship has also streamlined studies somewhat. Some scholars determine relationships among manuscripts then consult only the most important witnesses in a group, considering that they will determine the reading of the entire family. In their collations these scholars will frequently also look at the percentage of diversion from one another to identify whether the texts seem to be substantially in agreement with one another.
Some scholars have used profiling, using tendencies within a family of texts to identify the subgroups they fit. Some have identified some likely test passages which they think can point them accurately toward places where the families will diverge, thus allowing them to look at just a few passages in the manuscripts. Others will use sophisticated statistical profiling to see the extent to which texts diverge from one another.
This profiling tendency leads Metzger and Ehrman to discuss use of computer technology in biblical criticism. I found this portion of the chapter sadly lacking, as the authors discuss methods of compiling and analyzing variants in texts, as well as displaying images of manuscripts as ideas which will hopefully emerge onto the scene sometime in the future. I looked again at the copyright date of this edition of the book, as most of the methods which they said showed promise for the future were known to me as being theoretically possible as early as the mid 1980s. However, the copyright date in the book is 2004. Apparently biblical scholarship had, as of that time, remained behind the curve of technology. Maybe it will catch up at some point, making robust study tools available to scholars all around the world.
Classical textual criticism has two important processes, recension and emendation. p. 205 "Recension is the selection, after examination of all available material, of the most trustworthy evidence on which to base a text. Emendation is the attempt to eliminate the errors that are found even in the best manuscripts." Through history scholars have attempted various ways of dealing with the biblical texts. Yet one of the most important developments in biblical criticism has been to determine families of texts. We find that the source document used to make other copies may bring us back toward authoritative early reading. p. 207 "The basic principle that underlies the process of constructing a stemma, or family tree, of manuscripts is that, apart from accident, identity of reading implies identity of origin." Metzger and Ehrman discuss the implications of tracing families of texts, pointing out that one text may have resulted in a large number of copies, but the large number of copies does not necessarily imply the original source document is to be preferred over another source document which may have had relatively few copies made.
In more modern times there have been reactions against the classical methods. One scholar who rejected the methodology of genealogical studies of manuscripts was Joseph Bedier, who (p. 210) "became distrustful of the genealogical method, (1) because in practice it has almost always resulted in the construction of a tree with two branches of witnesses . . . and (2) because one can often argue well for several different stemmata of classification of manuscripts." Metzger and Ehrman suggest in response to Bedier's second criticism that manuscripts remain living entities, as they are copied and recopied, corrected, and commented upon. This means that they are often open to variations. In response to Bedier's first criticism, on p. 211 Metzger and Ehrman observe that "a much more innocent explanation lies behind the circumstance that almost all stemmata result in two branches than the imputation of deliberate suppression or distortion of evidence. From the standpoint of mathematics, as Maas observed, 'We must remind ourselves that of the twenty-two types of stemma possible where three witnesses exist, only one has three branches.'"
Classical scholarship held as an axiom that the shorter reading was generally the original one. Albert C. Clark challenged this view in 1914 when a study of Cicero persuaded him that (p. 212) "accidental omission was a much more common fault than deliberate interpolation by scribes." He suggested that the longer reading might be more reliable, thus suggesting that the Western text rejected by Westcott and Hort was better than the Neutral text they embraced. Later Clark tended to abandon his theory and proposed that Luke had prepared two different editions of Acts. The methodology remains open to debate.
Burnett Hillman Streeter tended to use classical methodology in a positive manner, publishing works in the early 20th century. p. 215 "Building on Westcott and Hort's classic work, Streeter refined their methodology in light of the acquisition of new manuscript evidence since 1881 . . . Streeter emphasized the importance of isolating the forms of text that were current at the great centers of ancient Christianity." Streeter thought he was able to identify three different forms of text and he postulated a fourth text which has passed into the others in mixture with their texts. He suggested that readings after the fifth century could safely be ignored unless they differed from the Byzantine text. Generally Streeters methodology and conclusions have fallen out of favor.
p. 218 "The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages." Metzger and Ehrman spend some time discussing the conclusions and arguments of those who favor the Textus Receptus as the most reliable biblical text.
p. 222-223 "Several scholars have directed primary attention to the individual variants themselves in an effort to find which will account best for the rise of the others. This process has been given various names. Sometimes it has been referred to as 'rational criticism.' . . . in its application the textual critic pays less attention to questions of date and families of manuscripts than to internal or contextual considerations." Eclecticism can be taken to greater or lesser levels. Different scholars consider different texts as more or less worthy of inclusion in their eclectic editions.
Conjectural emendation has also existed. pp. 226-227 "If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, that the documents supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been . . . Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests that are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable and (2) it must account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text." One of the difficulties seen in this method has been the tendency to propose a reading which cannot be documented where there are other readings which can make sense.
Recent scholarship has also streamlined studies somewhat. Some scholars determine relationships among manuscripts then consult only the most important witnesses in a group, considering that they will determine the reading of the entire family. In their collations these scholars will frequently also look at the percentage of diversion from one another to identify whether the texts seem to be substantially in agreement with one another.
Some scholars have used profiling, using tendencies within a family of texts to identify the subgroups they fit. Some have identified some likely test passages which they think can point them accurately toward places where the families will diverge, thus allowing them to look at just a few passages in the manuscripts. Others will use sophisticated statistical profiling to see the extent to which texts diverge from one another.
This profiling tendency leads Metzger and Ehrman to discuss use of computer technology in biblical criticism. I found this portion of the chapter sadly lacking, as the authors discuss methods of compiling and analyzing variants in texts, as well as displaying images of manuscripts as ideas which will hopefully emerge onto the scene sometime in the future. I looked again at the copyright date of this edition of the book, as most of the methods which they said showed promise for the future were known to me as being theoretically possible as early as the mid 1980s. However, the copyright date in the book is 2004. Apparently biblical scholarship had, as of that time, remained behind the curve of technology. Maybe it will catch up at some point, making robust study tools available to scholars all around the world.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Origins of Textual Criticism as a Scholarly Discipline
The Origins of Textual Criticism as a Scholarly Discipline" Metzger & Ehrman pp. 197-204
Where did the whole idea of textual criticism come from? Is this practice of deciding what the original reading of a document might be a very recent practice? Does it apply only to biblical studies or is it carried on in other genres of literature as well?
Metzger and Ehrman point to the origins of textual criticism in the Classical period and more so in the Hellenistic period when ancient Greeks starting in the 5th century B.C. would analyze different manuscripts of Homer and try to sift out variant readings and portions which seemed not to be original to the thext.
p. 198 "It is less widely appreciated - indeed, the qustion has seldom been raised - how far the methods of textual criticism current at Alexandria were adopted by scholars in the Church and applied to the text of the New Testament." Metzger and Ehrman go on to summarize some of the early patristic efforts to confirm the earliest text of the New Testament.
p. 199 "It appears that a learned leather merchant named Theodotus, lately come from Byzantium to Rome, had been stung by certain criticisms that Galen, the famous Greek physician, had leveled against the philosophical naivete of many Christians. In an attempt to introduce improvements in the methodology of scriptural interpreation, Theodotus and his followers seem to have undertaken a critical recension of the biblical text." Eusebius quotes a segment from a pamphlet published against those people. p. 199 "According to this author, the Theodotians deserved to be condemned on three scores: (1) they were engrossed in the study of logic, mathematics, and empirical science . . . (2) rejecting allegorizing, they practiced strict grammatical exegesis; and (3) they applied textual criticism to the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament." We really know virtually nothing more about this early movement, except that the people involved in it (p. 199) "were excommunicated as heretics by the authoritarian bishop of Rome, Pope Victor 1 (served as pope c. A.D. 187-198)."
p. 200 "Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea began a text-critical study of the entire Old Testament in Hebrew and in several Greek transations. His resulting Hexapla, which must have required many years of the most painstaking labor, was a monumental tool that many patristic scholars consulted in the famed library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, until its destruction in the seventh century during the Islamic conquest of the Near East."
These efforts at textual criticism, and the comments of Metzger and Ehrman about the excommunication of the Theodotians, along with a realization that Origen was also later considered a heretic, do not tell us a great deal about either the theology of the patristic period or about the fruitfulness of the textual studies. There is no real reason to believe that people have been excommunicated based on a desire to study the Scripture more effectively. There is also no real reason to believe that their actual textual work was particularly ground-breaking. An interesting insight, brought out on pp. 200-201 is that Origen documented some variant readings but then endorsed the positive aspects of the various readings, emphasizing their spiritual usefulness and insight, rather than talking about which one was a more likely original reading or giving reasons to prefer one over another. This is akin to people who will evaluate modern translations or paraphrases of the Bible based on whether they like the expressiveness or theological slant of one or another, rather than based on which is a more fair and accurate representation of the Scripture which God has given to his people.
p. 201 "Judged according to modern standards, St. Jerome (c. 347-420) was a more sagacious textual critic than Origen, well aware of the varieties of error that arise in the transcription of manuscripts." Jerome talks about the various ways a scribe could make a copying error or could choose to correct what he considered a poor reading of a passage.
p. 202 "Although primarily a theologian, St. Augustine (354-430) showed on occasion a keen critical judgment in textual problems." He suggests considering majority readings, but also seems aware that there are some instances when a majority reading may exist because of many copies being made from a corrupted text. Therefore he also recommends the practice of looking to manuscripts held in places of great learning and research when there are passages which are in doubt.
p. 203 "During the Middle Ages, when knowledge of Greek was at a low ebb, text-critical efforts were now and then directed toward the purification of Jerome's Vulgate text." Medieval authors will sometimes make comments suggesting the Greek which would presumably lie behind Jerome's translation.
p. 203 "At the time of the Renaissance and with the spread of the knowledge of ancient Greek, scholars began to correct the Latin Vulgate by the original Greek." The work of Erasmus and Beza, as well as the editors of the Geneva Bible, shows not only interest in the Vulgate text but also in comparison of Greek manuscripts.
p. 204 "The first scholar to make any use of all three classes of evidence for the text of the New Testament - that is, Greek manuscripts, the early versions, and quotations from the fathers - was probably Francis Lucas of Bruges (grugensis) in his Notationes in sacra Biblia, quibus variantia . . . discutiuntur (Antwerp, 1580). Toward the close of the seventeenth century, the scientific foundations of New Testament criticism were laid in four monumental publications of richard Simon 91638-1712), a French Catholic scholar far ahead of his day in biblical research." Simon chose to view the Bible specifically as a piece of literature, applying the same interpretive methods to it as would be applied to other pieces of literature.
Where did the whole idea of textual criticism come from? Is this practice of deciding what the original reading of a document might be a very recent practice? Does it apply only to biblical studies or is it carried on in other genres of literature as well?
Metzger and Ehrman point to the origins of textual criticism in the Classical period and more so in the Hellenistic period when ancient Greeks starting in the 5th century B.C. would analyze different manuscripts of Homer and try to sift out variant readings and portions which seemed not to be original to the thext.
p. 198 "It is less widely appreciated - indeed, the qustion has seldom been raised - how far the methods of textual criticism current at Alexandria were adopted by scholars in the Church and applied to the text of the New Testament." Metzger and Ehrman go on to summarize some of the early patristic efforts to confirm the earliest text of the New Testament.
p. 199 "It appears that a learned leather merchant named Theodotus, lately come from Byzantium to Rome, had been stung by certain criticisms that Galen, the famous Greek physician, had leveled against the philosophical naivete of many Christians. In an attempt to introduce improvements in the methodology of scriptural interpreation, Theodotus and his followers seem to have undertaken a critical recension of the biblical text." Eusebius quotes a segment from a pamphlet published against those people. p. 199 "According to this author, the Theodotians deserved to be condemned on three scores: (1) they were engrossed in the study of logic, mathematics, and empirical science . . . (2) rejecting allegorizing, they practiced strict grammatical exegesis; and (3) they applied textual criticism to the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament." We really know virtually nothing more about this early movement, except that the people involved in it (p. 199) "were excommunicated as heretics by the authoritarian bishop of Rome, Pope Victor 1 (served as pope c. A.D. 187-198)."
p. 200 "Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea began a text-critical study of the entire Old Testament in Hebrew and in several Greek transations. His resulting Hexapla, which must have required many years of the most painstaking labor, was a monumental tool that many patristic scholars consulted in the famed library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, until its destruction in the seventh century during the Islamic conquest of the Near East."
These efforts at textual criticism, and the comments of Metzger and Ehrman about the excommunication of the Theodotians, along with a realization that Origen was also later considered a heretic, do not tell us a great deal about either the theology of the patristic period or about the fruitfulness of the textual studies. There is no real reason to believe that people have been excommunicated based on a desire to study the Scripture more effectively. There is also no real reason to believe that their actual textual work was particularly ground-breaking. An interesting insight, brought out on pp. 200-201 is that Origen documented some variant readings but then endorsed the positive aspects of the various readings, emphasizing their spiritual usefulness and insight, rather than talking about which one was a more likely original reading or giving reasons to prefer one over another. This is akin to people who will evaluate modern translations or paraphrases of the Bible based on whether they like the expressiveness or theological slant of one or another, rather than based on which is a more fair and accurate representation of the Scripture which God has given to his people.
p. 201 "Judged according to modern standards, St. Jerome (c. 347-420) was a more sagacious textual critic than Origen, well aware of the varieties of error that arise in the transcription of manuscripts." Jerome talks about the various ways a scribe could make a copying error or could choose to correct what he considered a poor reading of a passage.
p. 202 "Although primarily a theologian, St. Augustine (354-430) showed on occasion a keen critical judgment in textual problems." He suggests considering majority readings, but also seems aware that there are some instances when a majority reading may exist because of many copies being made from a corrupted text. Therefore he also recommends the practice of looking to manuscripts held in places of great learning and research when there are passages which are in doubt.
p. 203 "During the Middle Ages, when knowledge of Greek was at a low ebb, text-critical efforts were now and then directed toward the purification of Jerome's Vulgate text." Medieval authors will sometimes make comments suggesting the Greek which would presumably lie behind Jerome's translation.
p. 203 "At the time of the Renaissance and with the spread of the knowledge of ancient Greek, scholars began to correct the Latin Vulgate by the original Greek." The work of Erasmus and Beza, as well as the editors of the Geneva Bible, shows not only interest in the Vulgate text but also in comparison of Greek manuscripts.
p. 204 "The first scholar to make any use of all three classes of evidence for the text of the New Testament - that is, Greek manuscripts, the early versions, and quotations from the fathers - was probably Francis Lucas of Bruges (grugensis) in his Notationes in sacra Biblia, quibus variantia . . . discutiuntur (Antwerp, 1580). Toward the close of the seventeenth century, the scientific foundations of New Testament criticism were laid in four monumental publications of richard Simon 91638-1712), a French Catholic scholar far ahead of his day in biblical research." Simon chose to view the Bible specifically as a piece of literature, applying the same interpretive methods to it as would be applied to other pieces of literature.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
"The Modern Critical Period: From Griesbach to the Present"
"The Modern Critical Period: From Griesbach to the Present" Metzger & Ehrman pp. 165-194
I. THE BEGINNINGS OF SCIENTIFIC TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) p. 165 "further developed Bengel's and Semler's grouping of manuscripts in recensions. At first, he was inclined to divide the extant materials into five or six different groups; he afterward limited them to three: the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine recensions." Griesbach came up with 15 canons of textual criticism which served as specific guidelines for determining whether one reading of a passage should be preferred over another. Thse canons are very specific and detailed. Use of these canons tended to direct scholars toward readings of passages which were found in early texts, such as the Codex Vaticanus, which had not been published and studied at the time of Griesbach.
II. THE OVERTHROW OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
p. 170 "The first recognized scholar to break totally with the Textus Receptus was the celebrated classical and Germanic philologist of Berlin Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), who published an edition of the Greek Testament that rests wholly upon the application of textual criticism in the evaluation of variant readings. Lachmann is famous for his editions of ancient classical authors, including Propertius, Catullus, Tibullus, Lucretius, as well as medieval epics and lyrics such as the Nibelungenlied. Walther von der Vogelweide, and Wolfram von Eschenbach. He demonstrated how, by comparison of manuscripts, it is possible to draw inferences as to their lost ancestors or archetypes, their condition, and their pagination. In his most famous work, that on Lucretius, he showed that the peculiarities of the three chief manuscripts all derive from a single archetype, containing 302 pages of 26 lines each, and thus he was able to make various transpositions in ther eceived text." Lachmann spent 5 years working with majuscule manuscripts and in 1831 published a list of passages in which he considered the Greek text current in the East by about A.D. 380 differed from the Textus Receptus.
p. 172 "The man to whom modern textual critics of the New Testament owe most is without doubt Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-74), who sought out and published more manuscripts and produced more critical editions of the Greek Bible than any other single scholar. Between 1841 and 1872 he prepared eight editions of the Greek Testament, some of which were reissued alone or with German or Latin versions, as well as 22 volumes of texts of biblical manuscripts. The totla number of his books and articles, most of them relating to biblical criticism, exceeds 150."
Tischendorf in 1869-72 released a two volume Greek New Testament which had an apparatus assembling all the variants readings which he and other scholars had found.
Various other scholars pursued collations of evidence with an eye to publication of an authoritative New Testamnet text. Among these two most influential were Westcott and Hort. p. 177 "Westcott and Hort distinguished four principal types of text: the Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral."
p. 177 "The latest of these four forms of text is the Syrian, which is a mixed text resulting from a revision made by an editor or editors in the fourth century who wished to produce a smooth, easy, and complete text. This conflated text, the farthest removed from the originals, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was disseminated widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. . . The Textus Receptus is the latest form of the Syrian text."
p. 178 "The so-called western type is both ancient and widespread. It is preserved in certain bilingual majuscule manuscripts, notably Codex Bezae of the Gospels and Acts and Codex Claromontanus of the Epistles, the Old Latin version(s), and the Curetonian Syriac."
p. 179 "The Alexandrian text, according to Westcott and Hort, is preserved to a greater or lesser extent in Codex Ephraem, Codex Regius, Codex 33, and the Coptic versions (especially the Bohairic), as well as the quotations of the Alexandrian fathers Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Didymus, and Cyril." This text uses a "delicate philological tact" and attains a good degree of "polish" in its usage.
p. 179 "The Neutral text, as its question-begging name implies, is, in the opinion of Westcott and Hort, the most free from later corruption and mixture and the nearest to the text of the autographs. It is best represented by Codex Vaticanus and next by Codex Sinaiticus."
p. 180 "Scholars today generally agree that one of the chief contributions made by Westcott and Hort was their clear demonstration that the syrian (or Byzantine) text is later than the other types of text."
Westcott and Hort's work was not uniformly accepted. Metzger and Ehrman bring up the arguments of John W. Burgon (1813-88) who condemned this new edition of the Greek New Testament. p. 181 "As an ardent high churchman, he could not imagine that, if the words of Scripture had been dictated by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God would not have providentlally prevented them from being seriously corrupted during the course of their transmission. Consequently, it was inconceivable to Burgon that the Textus Receptus, which had been used by the Church for centuries, could be in need of the drastic revision that Westcott and Hort had administered to it."
p. 183 "The overwhelming consensus of scholarly opinion recognzies that their [Westcott and Hort's] critical edition was truly epoch-making. They presented what was doubtless the oldest and purest text that could be attained on the basis of information available in their day.
Another approach to scholarship was taken by (p. 183) "Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918), professor of New Testament exegesis at Kiel and at Berlin, [who] edited the New Testament in Greek (3 vols., Lepzig, 1894-1900; 2nd small ed., 3 vols., 1902-5). Primarily an exegete, Weiss brought to his task an extensive and detailed knowledgeof the theological and literary problems of the text of the New Testament . . . Weiss discriminated among readings in accordance with what he deemed to be the most appropriate meaning in the context." Despite the different methodology, Weiss came up with nearly the same conclusions as did Westcott and Hort. p. 184 "The importance of Weiss's text is not only that it represents the mature opinion of a great exegetical scholar who had given years of detailed consideration to the meaning of the text but also that the results of his subjective methodology confirm the results of scholars who followed a different procedure, sometimes regarded as more objective because it started from teh grouping of the manuscripts themselves."
The chapter culminates in very recent history, discussing the development of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament as well as the United Bible Society's edition. In their most recent editions both Nestle-Aland and UBS have the same text, though differences in their apparatus. The textual study clearly builds on the foundations discussed in this chapter.
I. THE BEGINNINGS OF SCIENTIFIC TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) p. 165 "further developed Bengel's and Semler's grouping of manuscripts in recensions. At first, he was inclined to divide the extant materials into five or six different groups; he afterward limited them to three: the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine recensions." Griesbach came up with 15 canons of textual criticism which served as specific guidelines for determining whether one reading of a passage should be preferred over another. Thse canons are very specific and detailed. Use of these canons tended to direct scholars toward readings of passages which were found in early texts, such as the Codex Vaticanus, which had not been published and studied at the time of Griesbach.
II. THE OVERTHROW OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
p. 170 "The first recognized scholar to break totally with the Textus Receptus was the celebrated classical and Germanic philologist of Berlin Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), who published an edition of the Greek Testament that rests wholly upon the application of textual criticism in the evaluation of variant readings. Lachmann is famous for his editions of ancient classical authors, including Propertius, Catullus, Tibullus, Lucretius, as well as medieval epics and lyrics such as the Nibelungenlied. Walther von der Vogelweide, and Wolfram von Eschenbach. He demonstrated how, by comparison of manuscripts, it is possible to draw inferences as to their lost ancestors or archetypes, their condition, and their pagination. In his most famous work, that on Lucretius, he showed that the peculiarities of the three chief manuscripts all derive from a single archetype, containing 302 pages of 26 lines each, and thus he was able to make various transpositions in ther eceived text." Lachmann spent 5 years working with majuscule manuscripts and in 1831 published a list of passages in which he considered the Greek text current in the East by about A.D. 380 differed from the Textus Receptus.
p. 172 "The man to whom modern textual critics of the New Testament owe most is without doubt Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-74), who sought out and published more manuscripts and produced more critical editions of the Greek Bible than any other single scholar. Between 1841 and 1872 he prepared eight editions of the Greek Testament, some of which were reissued alone or with German or Latin versions, as well as 22 volumes of texts of biblical manuscripts. The totla number of his books and articles, most of them relating to biblical criticism, exceeds 150."
Tischendorf in 1869-72 released a two volume Greek New Testament which had an apparatus assembling all the variants readings which he and other scholars had found.
Various other scholars pursued collations of evidence with an eye to publication of an authoritative New Testamnet text. Among these two most influential were Westcott and Hort. p. 177 "Westcott and Hort distinguished four principal types of text: the Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral."
p. 177 "The latest of these four forms of text is the Syrian, which is a mixed text resulting from a revision made by an editor or editors in the fourth century who wished to produce a smooth, easy, and complete text. This conflated text, the farthest removed from the originals, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was disseminated widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. . . The Textus Receptus is the latest form of the Syrian text."
p. 178 "The so-called western type is both ancient and widespread. It is preserved in certain bilingual majuscule manuscripts, notably Codex Bezae of the Gospels and Acts and Codex Claromontanus of the Epistles, the Old Latin version(s), and the Curetonian Syriac."
p. 179 "The Alexandrian text, according to Westcott and Hort, is preserved to a greater or lesser extent in Codex Ephraem, Codex Regius, Codex 33, and the Coptic versions (especially the Bohairic), as well as the quotations of the Alexandrian fathers Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Didymus, and Cyril." This text uses a "delicate philological tact" and attains a good degree of "polish" in its usage.
p. 179 "The Neutral text, as its question-begging name implies, is, in the opinion of Westcott and Hort, the most free from later corruption and mixture and the nearest to the text of the autographs. It is best represented by Codex Vaticanus and next by Codex Sinaiticus."
p. 180 "Scholars today generally agree that one of the chief contributions made by Westcott and Hort was their clear demonstration that the syrian (or Byzantine) text is later than the other types of text."
Westcott and Hort's work was not uniformly accepted. Metzger and Ehrman bring up the arguments of John W. Burgon (1813-88) who condemned this new edition of the Greek New Testament. p. 181 "As an ardent high churchman, he could not imagine that, if the words of Scripture had been dictated by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God would not have providentlally prevented them from being seriously corrupted during the course of their transmission. Consequently, it was inconceivable to Burgon that the Textus Receptus, which had been used by the Church for centuries, could be in need of the drastic revision that Westcott and Hort had administered to it."
p. 183 "The overwhelming consensus of scholarly opinion recognzies that their [Westcott and Hort's] critical edition was truly epoch-making. They presented what was doubtless the oldest and purest text that could be attained on the basis of information available in their day.
Another approach to scholarship was taken by (p. 183) "Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918), professor of New Testament exegesis at Kiel and at Berlin, [who] edited the New Testament in Greek (3 vols., Lepzig, 1894-1900; 2nd small ed., 3 vols., 1902-5). Primarily an exegete, Weiss brought to his task an extensive and detailed knowledgeof the theological and literary problems of the text of the New Testament . . . Weiss discriminated among readings in accordance with what he deemed to be the most appropriate meaning in the context." Despite the different methodology, Weiss came up with nearly the same conclusions as did Westcott and Hort. p. 184 "The importance of Weiss's text is not only that it represents the mature opinion of a great exegetical scholar who had given years of detailed consideration to the meaning of the text but also that the results of his subjective methodology confirm the results of scholars who followed a different procedure, sometimes regarded as more objective because it started from teh grouping of the manuscripts themselves."
The chapter culminates in very recent history, discussing the development of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament as well as the United Bible Society's edition. In their most recent editions both Nestle-Aland and UBS have the same text, though differences in their apparatus. The textual study clearly builds on the foundations discussed in this chapter.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
"The Precritical Period: The Origin and Dominance of the Textus Receptus"
"The Precritical Period: The Origin and Dominance of the Textus Receptus" Metzger & Ehrman, pp. 137-164
I. FROM XIMENES AND ERASMUS TO THE ELZEVIRS
Metzger & Ehrman start by discussing the early printing of the Bible. p. 137 "Quite appropriately, the first major product of Gutenberg's press was a magnificent edition of the Bible. The text was Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and the volume was published at Mayence (Mainz) between 1450 and 1456." The printing of Bibles continued to flourish, but Greek text was more difficult to print, without a New Testament until 1514. Printing was difficult due to the decisions of printers to create fonts reproducing the cursive manuscript styles of the day, which included a very wide variety of different connections between letters. This required a very large set of type. But that was not the only reason for a delay. p. 138 "The principal cause that retarded publication of the Greek text of the new Testament was doubtless the prestige of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
pp. 138-139 "At length, however, in 1514, the first printed Greek New Testament came from the press, as part of a polyglot Bible. Planned in 1502 by the cardinal primate of Spain, Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros (1436-1517), this magnificent edition of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin texts was printed at the university town of Alcala (called 'Comlutum' in Latin). Known as the Complutensian Polyglot, the project was under the editorial care of several scholars, of whom Diego Lopez de Zuniga (Stunica) is perhaps the best known." It is unclear precisely what manuscript evidence was used for the Greek text.
p. 142 "Though the Complutensian text was the first Greek New Testament to be printed, the first Greek New Testament to be published (ii.e., put on the market) was the edition prepared by the famous Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536)." Apparently Erasmus was under some time pressure to produce a Greek New Testament quickly. As a result, he gathered the manuscripts which he could as quickly as possible. p. 143 "Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript that contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century." As an example of the scholarly care which haste can create, Metzger and Ehrman give the following account of the way Revelation moved to the printer. p. 145 "Unfortunately this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Instead of delaying the publication of his edition while trying to locate another copy of Revelation in Greek, Erasmus (perhaps at the urging of the printer) depended on the Latin Vulgate and translated the missing verses into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus' self-made Greek text are readings that have never been found in any knwon Greek manuscript of these verses - but that are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament." Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament did go through quite a few different editions and was improved over the years.
Erasmus was not alone, though. p. 150 "Stephanus' fourth edition (1551), which contains two Latin versions (the Vulgate and that of Erasmus) printed on either side of the Greek text, is noteworthy because in it for the first time the text was divided into numbered verses." p. 151 "Theodore de Beze (Beza, 1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva and an eminent classical and biblical scholar, published no fewer than nine editions of the Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition appeared posthumously in 1611."
II THE COLLECTION OF VARIANT READINGS
From the time of Stephanus' 1550 Greek New Testament to the 18th century collection and collation of variant readings became a popular pastime among New Testament scholars. Ranging from a simple notation and footnote of what variants existed to a very systematic apparatus suggesting the validity of different readings, different scholars gathered significant manuscript evidence, rather than simply accepting or rejecting readings without making explanation. p. 159 "In 1725, while teaching at the Lutheran preparatory school for ministerial candidates at Denkendorf, [Johann Albrecht] Bengel published an elaborate essay as a 'forerunner' to his projected edition of the New Testament. Here, he laid down sound critical principles. He recognized that the witnesses to the text must not be counted but weighed, that is, classified in 'companies, families, tribes, nations.' He was accordingly the first to distinguish two great groups, or 'nations,' of manuscripts: the Asiatic, which originated from Constantinople and its environs and included the manuscripts of more recent date, and the African, which he subdivided into two tribes, represented by Codex Alexandrinus and the Old Latin." This evaluation of variant readings and manuscript weight has continued to exercise influence in scholarship to the current time.
I. FROM XIMENES AND ERASMUS TO THE ELZEVIRS
Metzger & Ehrman start by discussing the early printing of the Bible. p. 137 "Quite appropriately, the first major product of Gutenberg's press was a magnificent edition of the Bible. The text was Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and the volume was published at Mayence (Mainz) between 1450 and 1456." The printing of Bibles continued to flourish, but Greek text was more difficult to print, without a New Testament until 1514. Printing was difficult due to the decisions of printers to create fonts reproducing the cursive manuscript styles of the day, which included a very wide variety of different connections between letters. This required a very large set of type. But that was not the only reason for a delay. p. 138 "The principal cause that retarded publication of the Greek text of the new Testament was doubtless the prestige of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
pp. 138-139 "At length, however, in 1514, the first printed Greek New Testament came from the press, as part of a polyglot Bible. Planned in 1502 by the cardinal primate of Spain, Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros (1436-1517), this magnificent edition of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin texts was printed at the university town of Alcala (called 'Comlutum' in Latin). Known as the Complutensian Polyglot, the project was under the editorial care of several scholars, of whom Diego Lopez de Zuniga (Stunica) is perhaps the best known." It is unclear precisely what manuscript evidence was used for the Greek text.
p. 142 "Though the Complutensian text was the first Greek New Testament to be printed, the first Greek New Testament to be published (ii.e., put on the market) was the edition prepared by the famous Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536)." Apparently Erasmus was under some time pressure to produce a Greek New Testament quickly. As a result, he gathered the manuscripts which he could as quickly as possible. p. 143 "Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript that contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century." As an example of the scholarly care which haste can create, Metzger and Ehrman give the following account of the way Revelation moved to the printer. p. 145 "Unfortunately this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Instead of delaying the publication of his edition while trying to locate another copy of Revelation in Greek, Erasmus (perhaps at the urging of the printer) depended on the Latin Vulgate and translated the missing verses into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus' self-made Greek text are readings that have never been found in any knwon Greek manuscript of these verses - but that are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament." Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament did go through quite a few different editions and was improved over the years.
Erasmus was not alone, though. p. 150 "Stephanus' fourth edition (1551), which contains two Latin versions (the Vulgate and that of Erasmus) printed on either side of the Greek text, is noteworthy because in it for the first time the text was divided into numbered verses." p. 151 "Theodore de Beze (Beza, 1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva and an eminent classical and biblical scholar, published no fewer than nine editions of the Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition appeared posthumously in 1611."
II THE COLLECTION OF VARIANT READINGS
From the time of Stephanus' 1550 Greek New Testament to the 18th century collection and collation of variant readings became a popular pastime among New Testament scholars. Ranging from a simple notation and footnote of what variants existed to a very systematic apparatus suggesting the validity of different readings, different scholars gathered significant manuscript evidence, rather than simply accepting or rejecting readings without making explanation. p. 159 "In 1725, while teaching at the Lutheran preparatory school for ministerial candidates at Denkendorf, [Johann Albrecht] Bengel published an elaborate essay as a 'forerunner' to his projected edition of the New Testament. Here, he laid down sound critical principles. He recognized that the witnesses to the text must not be counted but weighed, that is, classified in 'companies, families, tribes, nations.' He was accordingly the first to distinguish two great groups, or 'nations,' of manuscripts: the Asiatic, which originated from Constantinople and its environs and included the manuscripts of more recent date, and the African, which he subdivided into two tribes, represented by Codex Alexandrinus and the Old Latin." This evaluation of variant readings and manuscript weight has continued to exercise influence in scholarship to the current time.
Friday, January 6, 2012
"Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament"
"Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament" Metzger & Ehrman pp. 52-134.
Metzger and Ehrman observe that witnesses to the New Testament text can be divided into Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations in early Church literature. They introduce us to many of the important manuscripts which are available.
I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. Important Greek Papyri of the New Testament - descriptions of a number of the numbered papyri
2. Important Greek Majuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament - descriptions of the most important
3. Important Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament - especially important as they can often be sorted into text families
4. Other Noteworthy Manuscripts - a smattering of interesting manuscripts
II. Ancient versions of the New Testament
p. 94 "The earliest versions of the New Testament were prepared by missionaries, to assist in the propagation of the Christian faith among peoples whose native tongue was Syriac, Latin, or Coptic."
p. 95 "There are certain limitations in the use of versions for the textual criticism of the New Testament. Not only were some of the translations perpared by persons who had an imperfect command of Greek, but certain features of Greek syntax and vocabulary cannot be conveyed in a translation."
We observe that a "version" is a translation, though standards of translation in antiquity did not preclude additional commentary or even preparing materials which were not in the original. I am not sure what, if any, influence this pattern might have had on New Testament documents. These versions are interesting especially as we note the wide spread of the Gospel at a very early time into a variety of different language groups. Metzger and Ehrman describe each briefly.
1. The Syriac Versions
a. The Old Syriac Version
b. The Peshitta Version
c. The Philoxenian and/or Harclean Version(s)
d. The Palestinian Syriac Version
2. The Latin Versions
a. The Old Latin Version(s)
African
European
b. The Latin Vulgate
3. The Coptic Versions
4. The Gothic Version
I found this interesting on p. 115 "Shortly after the middle of the fourth century, Ulfilas, often called the "apostle to the Goths," translated the Bible from Greek into Gothic. For this purpose, he created the Gothic alphabet and reduced the spoken language to written form. The Gothic version is the earliest known literary monument in a Germanic dialect." It strikes me that this could have something to do with the number of Greek-based words which exist in German, as well as some of the similarities in the inflexion of German nouns to Greek nouns.
5. The Armenian Version
6. The Georgian Version
7. The Ethiopic Version
8. The Old Slavonic Version
9. Other Ancient Versions
a. The Arabic Versions
b. The Old Nubian Version
c. The Sogdian Version
d. The Anglo-Saxon Versions
III PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT
Observe that we could reconstruct almost all of the New Testament based on early Christian quotations of Scripture. Yet the patristic authors tend to present some difficulties as it is uncertain how often they were consulting a text to make direct quotes and how often they were making paraphrases. We also have some uncertainty as to whether subsequent scribes may have "updated" the biblical quotations by use of a more modern version of the text.
All in all, a very interesting, though long chapter. Knowing of the text and its brief summaries of the characteristics of some of the most important manuscripts could prove useful at some point. The illustrations, pictures of ancient manuscript pages, are very intriguing.
Metzger and Ehrman observe that witnesses to the New Testament text can be divided into Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations in early Church literature. They introduce us to many of the important manuscripts which are available.
I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. Important Greek Papyri of the New Testament - descriptions of a number of the numbered papyri
2. Important Greek Majuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament - descriptions of the most important
3. Important Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament - especially important as they can often be sorted into text families
4. Other Noteworthy Manuscripts - a smattering of interesting manuscripts
II. Ancient versions of the New Testament
p. 94 "The earliest versions of the New Testament were prepared by missionaries, to assist in the propagation of the Christian faith among peoples whose native tongue was Syriac, Latin, or Coptic."
p. 95 "There are certain limitations in the use of versions for the textual criticism of the New Testament. Not only were some of the translations perpared by persons who had an imperfect command of Greek, but certain features of Greek syntax and vocabulary cannot be conveyed in a translation."
We observe that a "version" is a translation, though standards of translation in antiquity did not preclude additional commentary or even preparing materials which were not in the original. I am not sure what, if any, influence this pattern might have had on New Testament documents. These versions are interesting especially as we note the wide spread of the Gospel at a very early time into a variety of different language groups. Metzger and Ehrman describe each briefly.
1. The Syriac Versions
a. The Old Syriac Version
b. The Peshitta Version
c. The Philoxenian and/or Harclean Version(s)
d. The Palestinian Syriac Version
2. The Latin Versions
a. The Old Latin Version(s)
African
European
b. The Latin Vulgate
3. The Coptic Versions
4. The Gothic Version
I found this interesting on p. 115 "Shortly after the middle of the fourth century, Ulfilas, often called the "apostle to the Goths," translated the Bible from Greek into Gothic. For this purpose, he created the Gothic alphabet and reduced the spoken language to written form. The Gothic version is the earliest known literary monument in a Germanic dialect." It strikes me that this could have something to do with the number of Greek-based words which exist in German, as well as some of the similarities in the inflexion of German nouns to Greek nouns.
5. The Armenian Version
6. The Georgian Version
7. The Ethiopic Version
8. The Old Slavonic Version
9. Other Ancient Versions
a. The Arabic Versions
b. The Old Nubian Version
c. The Sogdian Version
d. The Anglo-Saxon Versions
III PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT
Observe that we could reconstruct almost all of the New Testament based on early Christian quotations of Scripture. Yet the patristic authors tend to present some difficulties as it is uncertain how often they were consulting a text to make direct quotes and how often they were making paraphrases. We also have some uncertainty as to whether subsequent scribes may have "updated" the biblical quotations by use of a more modern version of the text.
All in all, a very interesting, though long chapter. Knowing of the text and its brief summaries of the characteristics of some of the most important manuscripts could prove useful at some point. The illustrations, pictures of ancient manuscript pages, are very intriguing.
Monday, January 2, 2012
"The Making of Ancient Books"
"The Making of Ancient Books" Metzger & Ehrman, pp. 3-51
I. The Materials of Ancient Books
1. Papyrus
There are period descriptions of manufacture of writing material among other products made from the papyrus plant. Sheets tended to be made approximately 15x9 inches, with one side having horizontal fibers and the other vertical fibers.
2. Parchment
Parchment is a finished leather. The term is derived from the alleged place of origin, Pergamum, though doubtless people in other places wrote on leather as well. An advantage of parchment is that it lends itself well to writing on both sides, though one side is more shiny than the other. It is a very durable writing material.
3. Ink Making
Inks in antiquity were frequently made from carbon, such as charcoal, water, and some gum arabic to thicken the ink. Carbon inks don't adhere to parchment very well, so as parchment became more common, oak gall and iron gall ink were developed. In deluxe editions of manuscripts some parts would involve purple, gold, silver, or red ink. The red was most common for indicating new headings. The term "rubric" is derived from the Latin word for the red ink used.
II. The Forms of Ancient Books
The Greco-Roman world tended to use rolls of writing materials. These were fairly cumbersome and finding references within a roll was difficult. In the early Christian period the codex became a favored format. The codex is analogous to today's books, with a number of leaves bound together along one edge.
III. Ancient Scribes and Their Handiwork
Styles of writing can be divided in many ways. A "book-hand" tends to be conservative and regular. "Cursive" (running) scripts are written rapidly and often include contractions and abbreviations. Most literary works are written in book-hand. The types of writing can also be divided into "majuscule" and "minuscule" hands. The majuscule uses capital-type letters, all approximately the same height. In minuscule writing the letters have differing heights and some letters will trail below the rest of the writing. When copying books commercially very frequently a group of scribes would be gathered in a scriptorium where a leader would read the text slowly as the scribes wrote. The work would typically be checked over by someone a bit later. Scribes would typically sit on the floor with their writing materials balanced on a knee. The Metzger and Ehrman book has a number of very clear illustrations of ancient manuscripts, including statements of the original size of the image.
IV. "Helps for Readers" in New Testament Manuscripts
1. Chapter divisions (κεφάλαια)
Different Greek and Latin manuscripts would have different marginal methods of indicating chapter divisions. Note that the chapter divisions were not standardized, but that retention of chapter divisions can help us trace a manuscript's history of copying.
2. Titles of Chapters (τίτλοι)
In some manuscripts chapters would have titles inserted. Often a list of the chapter titles would be used as a summary outline or even a table of contents.
3. Eusebian Canons
Eusebius of Caesarea collated the Gospels and assigned passages numbers. He then prepared tables indicating passages which were parallel in all four Gospels, in three of the four Gospels, and in two Gospels, providing for all the possible combinations.
4. Hypotheses, Bioi, Euthalian Apparatus
The hypothesis is an introduction to a book, similar to the brief book summary found often on the back of a modern-day paperback. A bios is a summary of important information about the life of the author of a text. Euthalius is the name given to the author of a synopsis of the life, writings and chronology of an author of multiple work, as well as an appendix of quotations and other useful information.
5. Superscriptions and Subscriptions
Headings of books, such as the titles, and subscriptions at the end of a book indicating the close of the book as well as sometimes the authorship and identification of the place of composition, place of copying, and the identity of the amanuensis are sometimes included.
6. Punctuation
Early manuscripts have very little punctuation. By the sixth or seventh century punctuation became more common.
7. Glosses, Scholia, Commentaries, Catenae, Onomastica
Gloss - brief definition of difficult word or phrase
Scholia - teacher's interpretive remark
Commentary - scholia applied to an entire work
Catena - collection of comments from older writers
Onomastica - "meaning and etymology of proper names" (p. 43)
8. Artistic Adornment
Especially in Byzantine manuscripts pictures of scenes, events, Christ, and his apostles will be included. Interestingly enough, on p. 44, Metzger and Ehrman observe that since artists did not have any information about what the apostles looked like, "all the early Christian portraits of the Evangelists go back to two main sets of four portraits each: one set was of the four philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus and the other set was of the four playwrights Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, and Menander."
9. Cola and Commata
The terms "colon" and "comma" are Greek terms for a clause and a phrase, respectively. It was not uncommon from the time of Demosthenes and Cicero to transcribe orations in these brief sensible portions. Many bilingual manuscripts appearing in Greek and Latin divide the text into cola and commata. By the way, if any of my Latin or Greek students read this, this practice is PRECISELY what I try to get you to do in your reading and recitation. If it worked for understanding the great orators of the past it might just work for you too :).
10. Neumes
Neumes are a style of musical notation by which a lector or cantor would know the traditional manner in which a text was sung. The observation of these marks in manuscripts is a striking reminder to me that historically literature is chanted or sung, not merely read in a monotone fashion.
11. Lectionary Equipment
This is one of the abiding interests I have. How have Christians chosen what to read in their assemblies? Many manuscripts are lectionaries, a selection of lessons from Scripture. Manuscripts of lectionaries were prepared to present the passages in the order in which they would be used in worship. There's a footnote on p. 47 referring to three sources. I'd love to have more references to historic development of lectionaries.
V. Statistics of Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament
Metzger and Ehrman go over some of the basic statistics of how many manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the New Testament writings exist from antiquity. In comparison with other well-attested works from the ancient world, the New Testament is incredibly well-attested. There is a wealth of manuscript evidence and that evidence is strikingly consistent in its readings of the text.
I. The Materials of Ancient Books
1. Papyrus
There are period descriptions of manufacture of writing material among other products made from the papyrus plant. Sheets tended to be made approximately 15x9 inches, with one side having horizontal fibers and the other vertical fibers.
2. Parchment
Parchment is a finished leather. The term is derived from the alleged place of origin, Pergamum, though doubtless people in other places wrote on leather as well. An advantage of parchment is that it lends itself well to writing on both sides, though one side is more shiny than the other. It is a very durable writing material.
3. Ink Making
Inks in antiquity were frequently made from carbon, such as charcoal, water, and some gum arabic to thicken the ink. Carbon inks don't adhere to parchment very well, so as parchment became more common, oak gall and iron gall ink were developed. In deluxe editions of manuscripts some parts would involve purple, gold, silver, or red ink. The red was most common for indicating new headings. The term "rubric" is derived from the Latin word for the red ink used.
II. The Forms of Ancient Books
The Greco-Roman world tended to use rolls of writing materials. These were fairly cumbersome and finding references within a roll was difficult. In the early Christian period the codex became a favored format. The codex is analogous to today's books, with a number of leaves bound together along one edge.
III. Ancient Scribes and Their Handiwork
Styles of writing can be divided in many ways. A "book-hand" tends to be conservative and regular. "Cursive" (running) scripts are written rapidly and often include contractions and abbreviations. Most literary works are written in book-hand. The types of writing can also be divided into "majuscule" and "minuscule" hands. The majuscule uses capital-type letters, all approximately the same height. In minuscule writing the letters have differing heights and some letters will trail below the rest of the writing. When copying books commercially very frequently a group of scribes would be gathered in a scriptorium where a leader would read the text slowly as the scribes wrote. The work would typically be checked over by someone a bit later. Scribes would typically sit on the floor with their writing materials balanced on a knee. The Metzger and Ehrman book has a number of very clear illustrations of ancient manuscripts, including statements of the original size of the image.
IV. "Helps for Readers" in New Testament Manuscripts
1. Chapter divisions (κεφάλαια)
Different Greek and Latin manuscripts would have different marginal methods of indicating chapter divisions. Note that the chapter divisions were not standardized, but that retention of chapter divisions can help us trace a manuscript's history of copying.
2. Titles of Chapters (τίτλοι)
In some manuscripts chapters would have titles inserted. Often a list of the chapter titles would be used as a summary outline or even a table of contents.
3. Eusebian Canons
Eusebius of Caesarea collated the Gospels and assigned passages numbers. He then prepared tables indicating passages which were parallel in all four Gospels, in three of the four Gospels, and in two Gospels, providing for all the possible combinations.
4. Hypotheses, Bioi, Euthalian Apparatus
The hypothesis is an introduction to a book, similar to the brief book summary found often on the back of a modern-day paperback. A bios is a summary of important information about the life of the author of a text. Euthalius is the name given to the author of a synopsis of the life, writings and chronology of an author of multiple work, as well as an appendix of quotations and other useful information.
5. Superscriptions and Subscriptions
Headings of books, such as the titles, and subscriptions at the end of a book indicating the close of the book as well as sometimes the authorship and identification of the place of composition, place of copying, and the identity of the amanuensis are sometimes included.
6. Punctuation
Early manuscripts have very little punctuation. By the sixth or seventh century punctuation became more common.
7. Glosses, Scholia, Commentaries, Catenae, Onomastica
Gloss - brief definition of difficult word or phrase
Scholia - teacher's interpretive remark
Commentary - scholia applied to an entire work
Catena - collection of comments from older writers
Onomastica - "meaning and etymology of proper names" (p. 43)
8. Artistic Adornment
Especially in Byzantine manuscripts pictures of scenes, events, Christ, and his apostles will be included. Interestingly enough, on p. 44, Metzger and Ehrman observe that since artists did not have any information about what the apostles looked like, "all the early Christian portraits of the Evangelists go back to two main sets of four portraits each: one set was of the four philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus and the other set was of the four playwrights Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, and Menander."
9. Cola and Commata
The terms "colon" and "comma" are Greek terms for a clause and a phrase, respectively. It was not uncommon from the time of Demosthenes and Cicero to transcribe orations in these brief sensible portions. Many bilingual manuscripts appearing in Greek and Latin divide the text into cola and commata. By the way, if any of my Latin or Greek students read this, this practice is PRECISELY what I try to get you to do in your reading and recitation. If it worked for understanding the great orators of the past it might just work for you too :).
10. Neumes
Neumes are a style of musical notation by which a lector or cantor would know the traditional manner in which a text was sung. The observation of these marks in manuscripts is a striking reminder to me that historically literature is chanted or sung, not merely read in a monotone fashion.
11. Lectionary Equipment
This is one of the abiding interests I have. How have Christians chosen what to read in their assemblies? Many manuscripts are lectionaries, a selection of lessons from Scripture. Manuscripts of lectionaries were prepared to present the passages in the order in which they would be used in worship. There's a footnote on p. 47 referring to three sources. I'd love to have more references to historic development of lectionaries.
V. Statistics of Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament
Metzger and Ehrman go over some of the basic statistics of how many manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the New Testament writings exist from antiquity. In comparison with other well-attested works from the ancient world, the New Testament is incredibly well-attested. There is a wealth of manuscript evidence and that evidence is strikingly consistent in its readings of the text.
Metzger & Ehrman Reference
Metzger, Bruce M. & Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)