"Jesus-Tradition Oral and Written" Wenham pp. 217-222
In this penultimate chapter Wenham asks the very important question of why the gospels are not referred to throughout the New Testament if, in fact, they were written early. There are remarkably few specific citations of the gospels in the remainder of the New Testament and even in the immediate subapostolic period. p. 219 "The thinness of appeal to the Jesus-tradition is not confined to the literature written at a time when the existence of the gospels is debatable, but it continues into the period of the apostolic fathers."
Wenham summarizes the arguments of Thompson on pp. 219-220. "1.) Language which echose the gospels is commonest in paraenesis. But in paraenesis, where argument ceases and exhortation begins, Paul has no need to cite sources. 2.) The occasional nature of the epistles means that their purpose is not to present the ABCs of Christian tradition for neophytes, but to give particular answers to particular problems. 3.) Paul's own chief experience of Christ was on the Damascus road, and his supreme concern continues to be with Christ as he is, rather than as he was. 4.) The cross outshone all other examples of love and humility, and the resurrection outshone all other examples of power. The whole Jesus-tradition was necessary to make the gospel claim intelligible, but in paraenesis all was secondary to its great climax. 5.) Chrsitianity was builto n Judaism and this remained a source for much of what Paul taught. So it is that he had no occasion to tell his readers what Jesus habitually spoke in parables, that he healed the sick and ministered in Galilee, that he was baptised, tempted and transfigured."
We go on to see five more reasons which may have prevented the norm in the Church from being the written gospels in the early period. First, those who had heard messages from the apostles would be more likely to depend on what those apostles said rather than what they wrote. Second, while Jewish education emphasized memorization of scriptures, the Gentile converts had more of an oral culture so would have been more familiar with sayings than writings. Third, scrolls are difficult to manage and refer to. Until the common use of the codex it would be more natural to quote and paraphrase from well known events. Fourth, it was some time before churches developed a habit of reading specifically a gospel and an epistle. The epistles were read but the gospel was stated in the preaching. Finally, canonicity would have developed slowly out of apostolic authority. The apostlic teaching was seen as the authority, but the writing was not necessarily considered as the whole body of the apostolic doctrine.
p. 222 "These factors account for the paucity of references to the gospels as manuals of instruction and show that in practice reliance was placed for a long time on oral instruction rather than on written texts."
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 2 Luke 1-5
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 1-5. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Luke 1-2 Notice that this carefully researched report Luke gives us is all about miraculous events - births of two children to mothers who could not have children but who conceived in response to an angelic message. The events surrounding both the birth of Jesus and of John the Baptizer are truly extraordinary. Yet when someone today talks about careful research, miraculous events don't tend to come up in the discussion. Maybe we can recapture the idea that simply because it is miraculous does not mean it is not true.
Luke 3 See how forcefully John calls people to believe Jesus. He is clear that Jesus is the one to watch, not John. The genealogy, as is proper for a gospel written to a possibly Gentile audience, traces Jesus as the son of God, not merely the son of Abraham. He is the one promised from the very start.
Luke 4-5 Jesus engages in ministry by healing, preaching, and calling disciples. Notice that, unlike most situations, Jesus selects his disciples. They do not select him. He is the one who will teach them what they need to know, who will show them what they need to see, and who will empower them for the work of the ministry.
Luke 1-2 Notice that this carefully researched report Luke gives us is all about miraculous events - births of two children to mothers who could not have children but who conceived in response to an angelic message. The events surrounding both the birth of Jesus and of John the Baptizer are truly extraordinary. Yet when someone today talks about careful research, miraculous events don't tend to come up in the discussion. Maybe we can recapture the idea that simply because it is miraculous does not mean it is not true.
Luke 3 See how forcefully John calls people to believe Jesus. He is clear that Jesus is the one to watch, not John. The genealogy, as is proper for a gospel written to a possibly Gentile audience, traces Jesus as the son of God, not merely the son of Abraham. He is the one promised from the very start.
Luke 4-5 Jesus engages in ministry by healing, preaching, and calling disciples. Notice that, unlike most situations, Jesus selects his disciples. They do not select him. He is the one who will teach them what they need to know, who will show them what they need to see, and who will empower them for the work of the ministry.
How Were the Gospels Written?
"How Were the Gospels Written?" Wenham, pp. 198-216
A question central to Wenham's book is the manner of the composition of the gospels. Recent scholarship has taken a view of literary dependence which assumes a different manner of composition than is typical among authors, that is, a lifting of words and phrases from other texts in order to create a new text. Wenham suggests that this is highly unlikely. p. 198 "It is unlikely that one evangelist worked directly on the scroll of another. Ancient historians relied on their memories and the briefest of notes."
As opposed to this literary dependence, Wenham suggests an extensive oral background. The Roman culture of the time, as well as the Jewish culture, emphasized learning oral traditions, speeches, sayings, and the like. While people did clearly take notes on what they heard, the educational process generally emphasized speaking and writing from spoken sources, not writing and copying written sources.
On pp. 201-202 Wenham suggests that Matthew's gospel was written first, taking from Matthew's recollection and notes that he may well have taken over the years. He may well have written a version in Aramaic or in Greek. This gospel would have likely been based on the instruction in the life and work of Jesus which was given to people who came to Jerusalem wishing to hear from the apostles about the Christ.
Wenham discusses the writing of Marks gospel on pp. 202-207. He is clear that there are more variables to be considered in Mark's gospel. It may well have been structured based on Matthew's gospel. Tradition says the content is dependent on Peter's teaching. It is quite possible that Peter would have used a copy of Matthew's gospel in his preaching and teaching, as a prompt or an organizational aid. This would explain some of the parallelisms between Matthew and Mark. Mark also, of course, may have been quite familiar with Matthew's gospel. Yet because of the amount of concentration and work required to make an actual copy of a scroll, particularly with the customs of the time (no writing desk, for example), it is unlikely that Mark would have copied passages from Matthew. Rather, Mark would have approached the work with an intention of providing another view of Jesus' life and work, informed by Matthew and by the preaching of Peter, but not strictly dependent on Matthew's writing for quotations.
We turn our attention to Luke's gospel from pages 208-213. According to Luke's prologue there were already written sources. Yet Luke seems to have other sources of information as well, sources he trusts a good deal. Luke presents himself as someone who is experienced in the gospel and in teaching, as well as someone who has done thorough research. The length of Luke's gospel suggests that he planned it to fit within one standard scroll. This can explain his selectivity in usage of material which appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew already gave a comprehensive account, so would have been used here and there as needed. Mark, being much shorter, may have served Luke as an outline. Based on notes pulled from those sources and his own notes, Luke could have worked out his overall plan, then cut it in order to fit on a scroll. It would seem natural for him to keep the material which was not included in the existing gospels so as to present his on view of Jesus' life.
Wenham wraps up this chapter with some notes about the genealogies of Jesus. It may well be that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, while in Matthew we have the genealogy of Joseph. It may be that one of the genealogies is one of birth and the other is one indicating the legal inheritance of the royal power of David. Whatever the differences we seem to have two different traditions for the genealogy. There is no definitive explanation.
A question central to Wenham's book is the manner of the composition of the gospels. Recent scholarship has taken a view of literary dependence which assumes a different manner of composition than is typical among authors, that is, a lifting of words and phrases from other texts in order to create a new text. Wenham suggests that this is highly unlikely. p. 198 "It is unlikely that one evangelist worked directly on the scroll of another. Ancient historians relied on their memories and the briefest of notes."
As opposed to this literary dependence, Wenham suggests an extensive oral background. The Roman culture of the time, as well as the Jewish culture, emphasized learning oral traditions, speeches, sayings, and the like. While people did clearly take notes on what they heard, the educational process generally emphasized speaking and writing from spoken sources, not writing and copying written sources.
On pp. 201-202 Wenham suggests that Matthew's gospel was written first, taking from Matthew's recollection and notes that he may well have taken over the years. He may well have written a version in Aramaic or in Greek. This gospel would have likely been based on the instruction in the life and work of Jesus which was given to people who came to Jerusalem wishing to hear from the apostles about the Christ.
Wenham discusses the writing of Marks gospel on pp. 202-207. He is clear that there are more variables to be considered in Mark's gospel. It may well have been structured based on Matthew's gospel. Tradition says the content is dependent on Peter's teaching. It is quite possible that Peter would have used a copy of Matthew's gospel in his preaching and teaching, as a prompt or an organizational aid. This would explain some of the parallelisms between Matthew and Mark. Mark also, of course, may have been quite familiar with Matthew's gospel. Yet because of the amount of concentration and work required to make an actual copy of a scroll, particularly with the customs of the time (no writing desk, for example), it is unlikely that Mark would have copied passages from Matthew. Rather, Mark would have approached the work with an intention of providing another view of Jesus' life and work, informed by Matthew and by the preaching of Peter, but not strictly dependent on Matthew's writing for quotations.
We turn our attention to Luke's gospel from pages 208-213. According to Luke's prologue there were already written sources. Yet Luke seems to have other sources of information as well, sources he trusts a good deal. Luke presents himself as someone who is experienced in the gospel and in teaching, as well as someone who has done thorough research. The length of Luke's gospel suggests that he planned it to fit within one standard scroll. This can explain his selectivity in usage of material which appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew already gave a comprehensive account, so would have been used here and there as needed. Mark, being much shorter, may have served Luke as an outline. Based on notes pulled from those sources and his own notes, Luke could have worked out his overall plan, then cut it in order to fit on a scroll. It would seem natural for him to keep the material which was not included in the existing gospels so as to present his on view of Jesus' life.
Wenham wraps up this chapter with some notes about the genealogies of Jesus. It may well be that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, while in Matthew we have the genealogy of Joseph. It may be that one of the genealogies is one of birth and the other is one indicating the legal inheritance of the royal power of David. Whatever the differences we seem to have two different traditions for the genealogy. There is no definitive explanation.
Monday, February 6, 2012
I guess I've got my priorities in an odd place . . .
I guess I've got my priorities in an odd place. Yesterday, when an enormous number of Americans were engaging in one of the biggest holidays of the year, festivities surrounding the Super Bowl, I took the family out for pizza after church, a slightly belated birthday celebration for my now fifteen year old daughter. Our family along with my daughter's guest went home and played a rousing game of Settlers of Catan, then pretty much went our own ways to give all us introverts some time to recharge. Later on, a couple of episodes of Dr. Who, some homemade soup, and some finger foods. Way better, in my opinion, than watching a bunch of people chasing an oblong ball or even than watching the quirky ways people try to market their products on the most expensive television time of the year.
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 1 Exodus 37-40
Our reading challenge for the day is Exodus 37-40. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
We read about the final construction of some of the furnishings of the tabernacle and of the tabernacle itself, as well as the priestly garments. While we could talk about all the symbolism in the various features of the furnishings and garments, and that could be fruitful, what strikes me is what happens afterward. Aaron and his sons are washed, dressed, and anointed. See that they don't prepare themselves, just as they did not choose themselves. How does our Lord prepare people for ministry? He is the one who chooses us, calls us, and provides people in our lives who train us and set us aside for God's service. There's some symbolism to the pastor being dressed in special liturgical garments, and having someone put the robe, stole, and other garments upon him. We don't always do this, but it would be full of symbolic meaning if we did. Enabling God's people to receive the grace of God through word and sacrament is not something we take upon ourselves. It is something placed upon us.
See God's response to the faithful work of the servants of Israel. He so fills the tabernacle with his glory that even Moses, who has approached him on the mountain, cannot enter the tabernacle. God's presence is with his people wherever they need to go.
Exodus is done. Next stop? Luke's Gospel!
We read about the final construction of some of the furnishings of the tabernacle and of the tabernacle itself, as well as the priestly garments. While we could talk about all the symbolism in the various features of the furnishings and garments, and that could be fruitful, what strikes me is what happens afterward. Aaron and his sons are washed, dressed, and anointed. See that they don't prepare themselves, just as they did not choose themselves. How does our Lord prepare people for ministry? He is the one who chooses us, calls us, and provides people in our lives who train us and set us aside for God's service. There's some symbolism to the pastor being dressed in special liturgical garments, and having someone put the robe, stole, and other garments upon him. We don't always do this, but it would be full of symbolic meaning if we did. Enabling God's people to receive the grace of God through word and sacrament is not something we take upon ourselves. It is something placed upon us.
See God's response to the faithful work of the servants of Israel. He so fills the tabernacle with his glory that even Moses, who has approached him on the mountain, cannot enter the tabernacle. God's presence is with his people wherever they need to go.
Exodus is done. Next stop? Luke's Gospel!
Galatians
"Galatians" Carson & Moo pp. 456-478
CONTENT
Carson and Moo observe that Paul's letter to the Galatians shows a great deal of urgency. When we confront people who are entrapped in sin and are harming themselves, it is a very important matter, in reality a matter of life and death.
p. 457 "Paul contrasts life in the Spirit with that in the flesh, which leads to instruction about right living. Paul takes up the pen himself to close with an impassioned reminder that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters - but God's new creation does."
AUTHOR
This letter has a very long history of being recognized as a work of the apostle Paul. Internal evidence and historical tradition are consistent.
DESTINATION
An address to "Galatia" is problematic. The region of Galatia is essentially divided into two portions. The northern portion, a mountainous and remote area, was settled by Gauls in the third century B.C. The southern portion, a coastal region, had a multi-ethnic community during the Roman period. We know that Paul had journeyed through the southern regions, stopping at multiple cities. However, his welcome in that area was not uniformly positive. Paul's letter to the Galatians seems to indicate a very positive experience with the people. However, Paul had been ill at the time when he apparently met the Galatians. This would tend to suggest that he would not have gone to the difficult and remote mountainous area. We are left uncertain about what portion of Galatia Paul is addressing.
DATE
pp. 461-462 "If one adopts the North Galatian theory, then because Paul could not have spent enough time ministering in the north to plant churches until about halfway through his recorded missionary service, the date of Galatians, which of course must have been written after the planting of the church, must be a little later - about the same time as Paul's letter to Rome. If the South Galatian theory is adopted, an early date is possible." Carson and Moo suggest a number of considerations which support an early date, including his lack of mention of the decree of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which addressed many of the issues Paul addresses in Galatians. Others suggest an affinity with the Corinthian letters and lean toward a later composition. pp. 464-465 "That the letter precedes the Jerusalem Council seems indicated by the fact that Paul makes no mention of its verdict. Even if he did not make it his main argument, it is hard to see why he should omit all mention of such a significant support to his argument against accepting the whole Jewish Torah."
OCCASION
p. 465 "From Acts 13-14 we learn that Paul and Barnabas evangelized the southern part of the province of Galatia by going first to the synagogues, where they preached to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. but in each city Jews stirred up opposition, and the preachers turned to the Gentiles and made converts from among them."
p. 465 "But after Paul and Barnabas left the scene, apparently some Jewish Christians came into the area and taught that those who embrace the Christian salvation must submit to Jewish Law, the Torah."
p. 466 "In recent years some have argued that all or at least most of the laws that these interlopers were pressing on the Galatians were the legislative pieces that established "boundary markers" - the practices that differentiated Jews from other people . . . Certainly Paul is constantly at pains to unite Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Nevertheless, this "new perspective" on Paul is too narrow."
Carson and Moo suggest a number of situations that apparently provoked the composition. There were apparently false teachers who had come from the Jewish Christian camp. They sometimes see libertinism, spurring people to indulge in sin. There were criticisms of Paul mentioned. And the gospel of grace was compromised by the teaching which had arisen in Galatia.
TEXT
There are a number of minor variants in the text of Galatians but nothing which causes difficulties. Among the variants are the name used for Peter and whether in chapter 1 verse 6 the words "of Christ" should come after the word "grace." These are not serious problems.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Galatians was adopted very early and consistently as canonical. There are hints of it in late first century and early second century authors.
GALATIANS IN RECENT STUDY
There is an ongoing debate about the identity of the people Paul was opposing. There is also a great deal of study on the rhetorical features of Galatians. Rather a lot of the most recent discussion focuses on the work of E.P. Sanders who suggested that the Jews never thought they could be saved by keeping the law. His work surfaces as a presupposition of many in Pauline studies today.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF GALATIANS
This book sets out the truth of justification by faith in Christ and by no other means. This concept is of critical importance to all Christians. There is also a strong emphasis on Christian freedom. We are justified by grace through faith and we are set free to walk in the Spirit.
CONTENT
Carson and Moo observe that Paul's letter to the Galatians shows a great deal of urgency. When we confront people who are entrapped in sin and are harming themselves, it is a very important matter, in reality a matter of life and death.
p. 457 "Paul contrasts life in the Spirit with that in the flesh, which leads to instruction about right living. Paul takes up the pen himself to close with an impassioned reminder that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters - but God's new creation does."
AUTHOR
This letter has a very long history of being recognized as a work of the apostle Paul. Internal evidence and historical tradition are consistent.
DESTINATION
An address to "Galatia" is problematic. The region of Galatia is essentially divided into two portions. The northern portion, a mountainous and remote area, was settled by Gauls in the third century B.C. The southern portion, a coastal region, had a multi-ethnic community during the Roman period. We know that Paul had journeyed through the southern regions, stopping at multiple cities. However, his welcome in that area was not uniformly positive. Paul's letter to the Galatians seems to indicate a very positive experience with the people. However, Paul had been ill at the time when he apparently met the Galatians. This would tend to suggest that he would not have gone to the difficult and remote mountainous area. We are left uncertain about what portion of Galatia Paul is addressing.
DATE
pp. 461-462 "If one adopts the North Galatian theory, then because Paul could not have spent enough time ministering in the north to plant churches until about halfway through his recorded missionary service, the date of Galatians, which of course must have been written after the planting of the church, must be a little later - about the same time as Paul's letter to Rome. If the South Galatian theory is adopted, an early date is possible." Carson and Moo suggest a number of considerations which support an early date, including his lack of mention of the decree of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which addressed many of the issues Paul addresses in Galatians. Others suggest an affinity with the Corinthian letters and lean toward a later composition. pp. 464-465 "That the letter precedes the Jerusalem Council seems indicated by the fact that Paul makes no mention of its verdict. Even if he did not make it his main argument, it is hard to see why he should omit all mention of such a significant support to his argument against accepting the whole Jewish Torah."
OCCASION
p. 465 "From Acts 13-14 we learn that Paul and Barnabas evangelized the southern part of the province of Galatia by going first to the synagogues, where they preached to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. but in each city Jews stirred up opposition, and the preachers turned to the Gentiles and made converts from among them."
p. 465 "But after Paul and Barnabas left the scene, apparently some Jewish Christians came into the area and taught that those who embrace the Christian salvation must submit to Jewish Law, the Torah."
p. 466 "In recent years some have argued that all or at least most of the laws that these interlopers were pressing on the Galatians were the legislative pieces that established "boundary markers" - the practices that differentiated Jews from other people . . . Certainly Paul is constantly at pains to unite Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Nevertheless, this "new perspective" on Paul is too narrow."
Carson and Moo suggest a number of situations that apparently provoked the composition. There were apparently false teachers who had come from the Jewish Christian camp. They sometimes see libertinism, spurring people to indulge in sin. There were criticisms of Paul mentioned. And the gospel of grace was compromised by the teaching which had arisen in Galatia.
TEXT
There are a number of minor variants in the text of Galatians but nothing which causes difficulties. Among the variants are the name used for Peter and whether in chapter 1 verse 6 the words "of Christ" should come after the word "grace." These are not serious problems.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Galatians was adopted very early and consistently as canonical. There are hints of it in late first century and early second century authors.
GALATIANS IN RECENT STUDY
There is an ongoing debate about the identity of the people Paul was opposing. There is also a great deal of study on the rhetorical features of Galatians. Rather a lot of the most recent discussion focuses on the work of E.P. Sanders who suggested that the Jews never thought they could be saved by keeping the law. His work surfaces as a presupposition of many in Pauline studies today.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF GALATIANS
This book sets out the truth of justification by faith in Christ and by no other means. This concept is of critical importance to all Christians. There is also a strong emphasis on Christian freedom. We are justified by grace through faith and we are set free to walk in the Spirit.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)