click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
My Favorite Passage That's Not in the Bible
by Dan WallaceAugust 7th, 2007
81 Comments
A year and a half ago, Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why was released. No one at the time could have predicted that it would become a New York Bestseller. It’s a book that essentially introduces textual criticism to a general readership. There are some serious problems with the book, as I have noted in reviews posted on www.bible.org, in Christian Research Journal, and in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. In general, Ehrman suggests a gloomy prospect of recovering the original text, and further, that what we thought was authentic often turns out not to be—most significantly, in passages affirming a high Christology.
As much as I disagree with Ehrman over these issues, there’s one thing that I think he is right on target about. He speaks about some passages that scholars for a long time have considered to be spurious, yet for a variety of reasons are still left in the Bible. Two in particular are noteworthy: Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11. These two texts—the two longest variants in the New Testament—are almost always marked out in modern translations with notes such as “Not found in the oldest manuscripts.” However, the passages continue to be printed in the Bibles, in their normal locations. The marginal notes are ignored by most readers.
Evidence of this is seen in the many interviews Ehrman has had over his surprising bestseller. He routinely brings up the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7.53-8.11), arguing that it’s not part of the original Gospel of John. There are gasps in the audience (e.g., when he was on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show) when he makes such a revelation.
As I noted in my review in JETS, keeping these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than relegating them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb just waiting to explode. All Ehrman did was to light the fuse. One lesson we must learn from Misquoting Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the gap between the church and the academy. We have to educate believers. Instead of trying to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be ready for the barrage, because it is coming. The intentional dumbing down of the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection from Christ. Ehrman is to be thanked for giving us a wake-up call.â€
In that article, I used the analogy of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: in the eighteenth century, when he wrote his masterpiece, he spoke glibly about the KJV reading of 1 John 5.7-8 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in oneâ€). This passage (or, more specifically, the mention of the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit), which in the KJV becomes an explicit affirmation of the Trinity, is not found in the great majority of manuscripts. In fact, there is no evidence that it was written in any Greek manuscript prior to the sixteenth century. Gibbon’s matter-of-fact denial of the authenticity of the verses in the KJV sent shock waves through England. Yet today, those two verses aren’t found in any major English Bible (apart from the KJV and NKJV), and they rarely merit a marginal note. Modern translations instead have: For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement†(NET Bible).
When it comes to the story of the woman caught in adultery or the long ending of Mark, why is it that translators are still hesitant to relegate these verses to the margin? My sense is that there is a tradition of timidity. The problem is that when layfolks learn that these verses are almost surely not authentic, it sends panic through their ranks. I assume that the RMM crowd is a bit more sophisticated than that. Hence, I am taking the risk of talking openly about these passages. If you want to see the arguments against their authenticity, simply check out the NET Bible’s notes on them (at bible.org).
The irony is that between these two doubtful passages, if most Christians had to choose, they would rather have John 7.53-8.11 in the Bible than Mark 16.9-20. Yet, the textual pedigree of the John passage is far worse than the Mark passage. To put it bluntly, the story of the woman caught in adultery is my favorite passage that’s not in the Bible.
This blog is not meant to get into the debate over whether these verses are authentic. I will simply ask you to look at the literature on this if you’re interested. It is certainly not too much to say that the great majority of New Testament scholars, including evangelical scholars, would reject both passages as later additions to the Gospels. However, no cardinal truth is lost if these verses go bye-bye. No essential doctrine is disturbed if they are MIA.
What I want to ask is a different question: In light of the scholarly consensus, how should translators address these passages? What would you prefer? Would you want the texts to remain in their place, with only a tiny marginal note that, like the small print in consumer products, is hardly noticed by the reader? Would you want these verses expunged from the text entirely with no trace? Would you want them relegated to footnotes with explanation? Ultimately, what I’m asking is, How honest do you want biblical scholars to be? Would you rather hear this sort of news from those who are enemies of the faith or from those love Christ and are willing to go to the wall for the scriptures? What say you?
Similar Posts:
- The Greer-Heard Forum: A Few Observations
- Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 2
- The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace
- I Don't Get Bart Ehrman
- Kickstarter Syllabus Release!
81 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan,
When dealing with sensitive issues like this — whether or not two passages belong authentically to the Bible — I’d like to see a scholarly treatment done by believers. Having said that I believe it is necessary that these scholars subject the passages to the same rigorous analysis as they would any other piece of ancient literature. Then explain in a well reasoned manner what should or shouldn’t be done with these passages. As a believer explain, as you mentioned, that no important doctrine is damaged if these passages are removed.
The alternative is to let hostile critics and others do the explaining. Instead of taking a nuanced view of the scriptures they may be more likely to say nothing can be trusted and it’s all inventions and it should all be thrown out.
I believe that faith and reason are not incompatible. As Christians we have nothing to fear in our faith from the intellectually honest work of scholars.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow. Talk about a telling the world that the emperor has no clothes!
I hope this post and the thoughts therein get the sort of coverage that Erhman seems to generate. In Sunday School, I recently dealt with passage in John, and I went the way of Calvin, who agreed that the passage was probably not in the original text, but is still good for our edification.
I would like to see the passages relegated to footnotes. These two pericopes have had far too much influence (and sentiment!) to remove them entirely, but to take them out of the Scriptures and to place them in the footnotes with a brief explanation would be both honest and responsible. I do like that the NET Bible prints it in a smaller print (something the ESV does not). This forces the reader to see that something is different about this section, whereas double-brackets can be easily skipped.
When the Da Vinci Code came out, lots of people in my church were in a tizzy asking a lot of “is that really true” type of questions. Educating uses on basic text-critical issues would be an incredible ministry to strengthen the church in a currently deficient area. However, I strongly believe education is a two-way street: the educator can offer only *some* knowledge, but must ultimately teach the student how to learn and facilitate the learning process. The student must, must, must assume the responsibility of learning. You can put these passages in footnotes with Comic Sans font and you’ve only helped them with these two passages. Somehow, the church must learn to learn and then get up and learn for themselves.
– Richard
Like or Dislike:
0
Inoculating people regarding such matters is wise: most pastors’ Greek Bibles are filled with alternate readings, so why not have English Bibles contain similar (albeit not as much) documentation and information?
Wait a minute! Isn’t that what the NET Bible has already done?
Like or Dislike:
0
Place a footnote in the column that you believe these portions of scripture were not in the original. Do you have ABSOLUTE PROOF they weren’t?
We seem to be going the way of the evolutionists here. They have no “PROOF” that evolution happened at all. BUT, they want everyone to BELIEVE it happened so they state things as though they are fact when in actuality they aren’t. If “scholars” start tearing apart everything they “BELIEVE” wasn’t in the original text, where will it end? Do we take out the verses that Dan Wallace doesn’t agree with, or do we take out the verses that Michael Patton doesn’t agree with. How much “plausible deniability” has to be present before the texts are removed? Who is the ultimate judge who makes the declaration that “No, these were NOT in the original text!”
I think you’re walking on dangerous territory in placing yourselves as the “Determinate Council.”
Leave it alone or just add footnotes.
Like or Dislike:
0
iakobusdoulos — let me turn the question back to you: Do you have “absolute proof” that they are original? What sort of proof would be acceptable either way? Are you looking for mathematical proof? Logical proof? Reasonable certainty? On what basis do you accept these texts?
Before you slander Michael and Dan (which you do when you put the word “scholars” in double-quotes, implying that they are not scholars in your eyes), please offer your reasons for keeping the text. By the way, emotional appeals do not count as reasons.
Lastly, Dan and Michael do not consider themselves the “Determinate Council.” Their opinion is shared by many, many scholars through the ages. Note that even Erasmus (whose text stands behind the KJV) gagged at having to put the 1 John passage in his text.
Like or Dislike:
0
Boy, what do you say when you are taken wrong? There was no offense meant to anyone! I was trying to make a point. Sorry if I’m not as eloquent as most.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oops
Sorry if I took your post wrong. However, I bet there are many who might echo the sentiment in which I took your post. There are certainly those would consider this “tampering with Scripture”.
Like or Dislike:
0
If I have offended anyone, I most humbly apologize in Christ. My intentions were honorable. Maybe my lack of education is reflective in my post, however, my post stands as written. I don’t find anything offensive in it. If I am blind to my own arrogance or sinfulness, I appologize but the Lord knows my heart and my sincerity. Michael, you know me and my service to you in love and respect. Dan, you do not know me, but I hold you in highest regard as a true Brother in Christ and as an educator. May the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be on all who love Him.
Like or Dislike:
0
What are the opinions concerning what it is that makes a particular text or portion of text “valid” or “authoritative.”
Is “one†author of an entire book a requirement? Why or why not? Is it all being written in one sitting a requirement? Why or why not? Perhaps the most succinct way to pose the question is: What makes the Scriptures sacred? And, how do we know that THOSE Scriptures—or passages—are worthy based on what criteria?
Felicity
Like or Dislike:
0
richards, you wrote: Oops Sorry if I took your post wrong. However, I bet there are many who might echo the sentiment in which I took your post. There are certainly those would consider this “tampering with Scriptureâ€.
Thank you for the apology, forgiveness is extended.
I’m having a hard time deciphering what you mean though by “tampering with Scripture.” Could you please expound on that?
Like or Dislike:
0
richards,
You talked about people in your church being in a tizzy when the Da Vinci Code came out. I think as I was hinting at in my original post that sort of questioning and consternation comes about when hostile critics address issues that comment on Christianity, its scriptures and history.
Dan Brown’s apologists said he was only writing a fiction book and people should realize that. What he did was take his version of “facts” — things he claimed were historically verifiable and weave them into a fiction narrative. By doing that a lot of good church-going people asked “Did this really happen?”
Christian apologists were sort of caught flat footed and had to play catch up to combat the legion of errors in Brown’s book. Because a response took a little bit to formulate some wondered if the charges of secrecy and conspiracy may have been true.
What I mean to say is that as Christians we need to have good research and scholarship to address history and hermeneutics. So we can have excellent resources to turn to instead of allowing critics to always have the first word about what we believe.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
What these types of issues really come down to is our definition of inerrancy. If inerrancy is, “everything must be taken literal as God breathed†as many fundamentalist types take it you will run into huge problems with issues like this. It goes back to the blog post on the idea of dominions (I think Dr. Wallace posted that one as well); if one of them falls they all come tumbling down.
In regards to the question, I think it would be better for them to remove the passages but put a “*†where they use to be and refer to some clarification pages in the back or front of the Bible explaining why they have been removed with a brief summary of how they do not affect the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (taken them out of course makes it more authentic), similar to how some Bibles explain the rendering of words LORD and Lord in their front pages.
You would of course get some people upset (as in anything), but it may bring up some useful dialogue and educate many people on their misconceptions of how they understand and view Scripture.
Just my thoughts,
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Like or Dislike:
0
Obviously I don’t know how to spell dominos lol, I meant to say “dominos†instead of “dominions†in the first sentence.
Like or Dislike:
0
iak — regarding “tampering with Scriptures”, they come in several flavors. One non-lethal group would argue over how literal a translation must be to be considered Scripture , such as the spat between TNIV and the ESV. Certain ESV proponents see the TNIV as a distortion of God’s Word.
The most repugnant group would be the KJV-only crowd. This is a group that regularly finds anyone who reads a non-KJV Bible lacking an essential for salvation.
Then there are those who would group Dan, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Bart Erhman, and the Jesus Seminar into one big toilet and flush. Seeing no difference between critical scholarship and cavalier eisogesis, this group would assert that to suggest that such passages are additions is to “add and remove from the Word of God.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan,
You said:
“This blog is not meant to get into the debate over whether these verses are authentic.”
Seeing as how the mass majority of biblical scholars would submit that they are inauthentic (at least in the sense of being written by John or Mark or being included in the original manuscripts), it seems rather upsetting to me that we have even been set up to make such an unnecessary and emotionally based decision. Most who read this will react because they are familiar with and love these passages (at least the John 8 passage). I am sure that emotional commitment would cause many to desire to keep this in the text somehow. Some would even resort to so some sort of KJV Only defense or a Catholic authoritative defense (I could be wrong, but I think the Vatican has used Mark 16 and its mention of baptism in an authoritative way which puts it beyond their ability to consider that it might not be authentic). But the fact is that anyone who objectively looks at the evidence would undoubtedly be convinced that these passages should not be included.
Dan, I could not agree with your implications more. It is sad, indeed, that people first hear about this from liberal scholars and unbelievers. This is a real black-eye for the church with regards to our intellectual integrity and the separation between the academia and the pew.
Having said this, I think that these passages should be placed in the footnotes at most, but most readers versions of the Scripture should not have them at all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just a word about Ehrman. His is a sad story, really. I have listened to a number of his university lecture series through the Teaching Company and there is no doubt that he knows his stuff. But the problem is that he was once a fundamentalist believer, and when confronted with the issues that arise with that type of rigidity in the face of the evidence, his faith broke. In a recent interview in Biblical Archeology Review, he described his loss of faith. I believe that had he maintained a more flexible dynamic understanding of inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, this breakdown would not have occurred.
Unfortunately, he presents his views with the fervor of the convert and, it seems after having listened to dozens of hours of his lectures, a degree of resentment and condescension regarding the Scripture.
A cautionary tale NOT of the danger of opening the door to critical thinking on these issues, but instead on holding a too rigid and narrow view of what inerrancy is all about.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You are correct in pointing out that the Catholic Church does refer to Mark 16 concerning Baptism, but there are also other verses that pertain to our beliefs concerning baptism.
I wonder though how “signs following” Christian groups would react to Mark 16 being relegated to a footnote? Aren’t those very verses the ones they turn to most often to justify their snake handling, speaking in tongues, drinking poisons etc?
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
richards, your definition is incongruous with your response to me. I know what the literal definition is to tampering with Scriptures, however, this is not your implication in your assertion to me. I was hoping this is what you would clarify. In my original post, I, in no way, “tampered with Scripture” in the literal sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad, thanks for the info. Can you direct me to the place where the Catholic church speaks of Mark 16?
You are right about the snake handling groups. I imagine that most of them would have to be committed KJVers as well
Like or Dislike:
0
***From CMP:
Chad, thanks for the info. Can you direct me to the place where the Catholic church speaks of Mark 16?
REPLY:
Pardon my presuming upon the request issued to Chad…I would like to offer these.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
59 Cf. ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/].
60 Cf. ⇒ Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.
61 Cf. ⇒ Mk 16:16.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm#IV
IV. State of Text and Integrity;
…[Mark 16:9-20] …The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph–in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth–in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (O.L. and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the “Acts of Pilate”, the “Apostolic Constitutions”, and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark’s Gospel (“In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus”, etc.–Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the “Diatessaron”, and most probably by Justin (“Apol. I”, 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Felicity did a great job in answering for me. My source, however, was a little more mundane.
I saw on Steve Ray’s website a “Sacraments Chart” and under the heading of scripture Mark 16:16 is listed. See: http://www.catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/SacramentChart.pdf
I see though that Felicity’s citation from the Catechism provides that same scriptural reference.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan,
Thank you for your thoughtful (and thought-provoking) post. I had a thought regarding your question, “In light of the scholarly consensus, how should translators address these passages?”
I think that if both the internal (style) and external (manuscript) evidence demonstrated these passages to be nonoriginal, then they ought to be removed from the text. I feel a bit less strongly about this regarding Mark’s ending due to its presence in so many manuscripts, but nonetheless there ought to be a clear indication (perhaps a smaller font) that indicates the fact that it’s originality to the Gospel is highly unlikely.
I feel even more strongly that the pericope about the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11 should be removed from the text and relegated to a footnote, primarily due to the fact that 1) the manuscript evidence shows how it was wedged into John at this point; and 2) it interrupts the flow of the Johannine passage it’s inserted into. While I also greatly appreciate the story and am not suggesting that the account is nonhistorical, it should not continue to be presented as a part of John’s Gospel.
And while we’re talking about radically changing our translations, when are we going to get rid of translating Yahweh as “Lord” in our Old Testaments? I’d like to see a shift so that our English text transliterates “Yahweh” as God’s name, rather than use a title…
Love you guys,
C.L.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan and all, if the text was not in the most ancient manuscripts, I would say that at most the passages should be put in as footnotes, but I have to say that I love John 53-8-11 and would miss it. The section “And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground” lends such an air of authenticity to it. I imagined Jesus writing things such as “thief” “liar” “drunk” without having to point his finger directly at anyone. Even though it was not in the original manuscripts, I wonder if it was SO far from Jesus’ time on earth that it is not at all possible that the event occurred. Or, perhaps, it was a story that had been passed by his original disciples to younger disciples and on and on until someone said, “Hey, this story is too good to let get away. We have to write it down so it doesn’t get lost with time.” I guess we will never know. Or, maybe the scholars among us here have read about how this got inserted. If so, please give us that information if you have the time. Maybe Ehrman gives details in his book about how this story of the adulerous woman came to be in the Bible. Thanks!
Joanie D.
Like or Dislike:
0
From the NET Bible Notes (my magisterial authority
)
tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (× B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (× B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.†This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 à lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers†(Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.â€
Concerning both Mark and John, one must explain both why it is virtually absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and why the vocabulary and style of both are so different from the rest of the book. While we have the same vocabulary and style problem between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, it is easier to resolve due to the external evidence and the explaination of an amanuensis. Both Mark 16 and John 8 seem to be beyond any plausible explaination for continued inclusion other than emotional attachment and the plausibility of their basic historicity (esp with John 8). Yet we must be careful since historicity does not determine inspiration or canonicity. (BTW: I find no problem believing the John 8 is historical).
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, folks, for the excellent interaction! I really appreciate the great comments and, frankly, the boldness with which you express yourselves. I’m encouraged, too, by the general response that you would want these passages relegated to the footnotes. Since they have had such a long history in the text, and since they are well known, I think they should be in footnotes rather than not being printed at all.
I appreciate, too, the concerns that some raised about relying on scholars rather than relying on scripture. However, what needs to be stressed is that scripture as we have it today is based on an eclectic compiling of the data from the earliest and best manuscripts. There is no single manuscript that we can point to and say, “That’s exactly what the original says!” But to think that just because these two passages have been in printed Bibles doesn’t mean that they were always a part of the Bible. In spite of what the general public may think about biblical scholars at times, responsible scholarship does not simply chop out of the Bible what it doesn’t like. To be sure, there are those with a liberal agenda who twist the meaning of the text, but very few simply chuck it because it doesn’t meet with their agenda. And such scholars have had zero impact on the wording of the text that other scholars accept as genuine.
At bottom, these passages and several other, significantly shorter ones (no more than a single verse or two at the most) have a lot of emotional baggage attached to them. If you’ve grown up reading a passage as scripture, it’s very hard to even consider the possibility that it’s not—especially if it’s a favorite passage!
As for the historical question about the story of the woman caught in adultery, I make a distinction between what the evangelist wrote (which is what I regard as inspired) and what additions to the text may still be historically true. Something doesn’t need to be inspired to be true. There are, in fact, several places in Acts where additions were made by certain manuscripts (collectively known as the western text-type)—additions that may have come about by early oral tradition that had some genuine historical basis to it. But because such passages are not generally known, there is no emotional baggage attached to them. As Henry Alford argued long ago, we must always be willing to jettison the most treasured passage if the textual data do not support having it in the text. He was an honest, conservative scholar.
John 7.53–8.11 is a text that so many scribes wanted in the Bible that it ended up in quite a few different places. My take on it is that, however, it is not entirely historical. Rather, I think it was a conflated story between two different stories that circulated even earlier in various parts of the Roman Empire. What I’ve been wrestling with for some time is (1) who originally wrote the story, and (2) what did it have in it? My preliminary investigation suggests that the language is more Lukan than Johannine, and that it would have gone after Luke 21.38 if Luke ever intended to include it in his Gospel (some manuscripts even place it here). However, not exactly in the present form. I do think, though, that Jesus did in fact write something in the dirt—precisely because it’s ambiguous, mysterious, and is just begging for some sort of definitive answer: WHAT did he write? That several later scribes actually wrote down what their hunches were is very much in line with human nature. And it also tells us that the text has grown with time.
Yet, remarkably, over fourteen hundred years of copying the New Testament by hand, the text has grown no more than about 2%! That’s a growth of about 1/10 of one percent in the average person’s lifetime. If Donald Trump had put all his money on that investment, he’d die a poor man.
Like or Dislike:
0
I honestly am FLABBERGASTED that some people suggest REMOVING text from sacred scripture. :O
When you can go in and start relegating passages to footnotes, or removing them entirely, based on any criteria you intellectualize, you act in opposition to the scriptures.
The last few verses of the Bible tell you point blank **NOT TO DO THAT.**
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Consider what makes the texts included in the Bible SACRED—Why THOSE texts? Why not the Gospel of Mary, or the Gospel of Judas?
What makes a text known to be trustworthy and called “divinely inspired� What is the criteria?
Lastly, What does the “sacred” part of “Sacred Scripture” mean if men consider scripture able to be tampered with in this way?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
If you compare your NET Bible notes with the link Felicity provided to the Catholic Encyclopedia you get do very different opinions on the authenticity of the passage in Mark. I’ll grant you that the Catholic Encyclopedia was first published in 1911 or 1912, and reflects earlier scholarship, but they both make appeals to the manuscript evidence.
The passage you provided says that both Eusebius and Jerome make no mention of anything past Mark 16:8. The CE argues that in this instance Jerome most unlikely borrowed uncritically that opinion from Eusebius, which may have reflected an incomplete copy in circulation.
Furthermore, the CE argues that the majority of manuscripts include the additional Markan verses, even though the oldest don’t. The CE makes what I think is a valid point in that the oldest doesn’t make it the best.
I think as scholars that raises an intersting point. Do we trust the oldest versions merely because they are the oldest or do we trust the manuscripts that seem to be in consensus even if they aren’t the oldest? Or is it a combination of both approaches? Historians tend to trust sources that are the oldest and are assumed to be closest to the original even if it disagrees with more recent examples. Is that true of archaeologists or scholars of ancient manuscripts?
Dan — I appreciate that you mention the fact that over 1400 years the NT has grown by only 2%. I suspect that much of that 2% can be accounted for by taking into account grammatical and spelling changes that naturally occur as languages develop, change and become standardized. In my mind this fact also attests that the Scriptures are the word of God and he has protected it from corruption throughout the years. The Biblical manuscripts we have are consistent and virtually identical across the centuries and number in the hundreds if not thousands. Whereas, the ancient sources for much of what we know about Greek history and philosophy are far less and even less accurate than Biblical sources.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
Did not the late Bruce Metzger give a defense on why the Mark 16 passage should be retained? What is your view on his arguments?
Kurt
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity,
Regarding the reference to Rev 22:18, did you know that this also appears in Deut 12:32? Would you then say that the command in Deut commands us not to include the Prophets, Psalms, and NT? Or could Deut and Rev be appealing to the local context, i.e., the Law as given to Moses and the vision given to John? Exegesis requires context.
Deuteronomy 12:32 32 ¶ “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
Revelation 22:18 ¶ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
It sounds like this is more of an emotional appeal to leave a passage in the text without addressing the arguments Dan has brought up. No doubt that there could be *some* manuscript evidence for these passages, but I think that one of Dan’s quotes would be appropriate here: “Manuscripts must be *weighed* and not *counted*.” In other words, not all manuscripts are equal; age and pedigree are essential elements in determining how must consideration is due. Dan’s argument is that the manuscripts that attest to these passages are not nearly as strong as those they deny the passages.
Whether we agree with this assessment or not, his argument does merit investigation.
Richard
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity, what would you say if someone, today, chose to add some text to, say, Luke. And somehow he got it published by Zondervan or some other publishing house, and it stayed for a while and even got picked up in later editions? Would you say that spotting it as a later addition and removing it was “removing text from Scripture”? It made it into publication, and it was circulated and even repeated in later publications, after all.
While an extreme example, it is the same situation really. If those passages were truly later additions that had NOTHING to do with the original text, then it would be like adding human words to God’s Word, and in a way in which everyone would think it was God’s Word. So, removing them would be necessary, and that is why this question is relevant and important.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
This may be on or off topic but I had a question for you. I think I remember you saying you had a history back round so maybe you (or anyone else who posts here) can help me understand something I have been curious about for a while.
I have read different reviews of books with people giving their different opinions, but a consistent complaint I see in the reviews is “poor scholarship†for many historical (Christianity mainly) books. I understand that for certain people, disagreeing with the conclusion of a book may signify “poor scholarshipâ€, but what are the general rules or guidelines for scholarly works?
More specifically, how does one determine what source is better than another, and how does one determine if that person has interpreted their source correctly (given of course their source is more than likely in the past and in a different context). Obviously historians are not mathematicians, in the sense they their equations always come out “perfect†each time but I’m having difficulty grasping the means in which historians draw their conclusions without having already presupposed (at least something) in their minds.
This has been brought to light in the recent interview between Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith (i.e. Beckwith’s “reconversion†Catholicism), and followed up in blog comments where both sides seem to be using the same information but are coming up with completely different conclusions.
Hopefully you can understand my question.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Like or Dislike:
0
Josh, arguing over the relative value of sources is a constant battle area, even among secular scholars. It is all very nuanced and they will argue for the merits of one source or another based on a wide variety of criteria. Closeness in time to events recounted, indications of bias (or even assumptions of bias), track record of author, if known, conditions of discovery, etc.
But the issue of “poor scholarship” on the part of people of faith goes much deeper. Basically, there are two inter-related problems.
1. There IS a lot of bad scholarship out there from people of faith. The scientific method, even when used in history, is based on the idea of letting the evidence dictate the conclusions. If you think X and it turns out that the evidence shows that Y is more likely, you change you position to Y. And, of course, ALL such positions are only held to the degree that the evidence calls for. People of faith, and even scholars of faith, very often do this backwards (and possibly necessarily so). They start with the conclusion that they hold by faith, and then go and look for evidence to support that position. The more scholarly make a show of reviewing all the evidence, but in the end their faith dictates the conclusion. Now, it can be argued that ALL scholars start with a bias, but the DEGREE of bias and “proof-texting” used in the secular scholarship is much less, for the most part. The problem is that too many Christian scholars try to play the game on the secular playing field, but then don’t really play by the secular rules.
2. When there are scholars of faith, this issue of core faith beliefs will, at some point, create a disconnect with the scholarly process. The scholar who is also a Christian has concluded that the Scriptural texts are basically accurate REGARDLESS of the evidence, not BASED ON the evidence. Now, they may be able to show how it IS accurate even by scholarly, non-faith based, evidence, but the bottom line is that this is apologetics for the most part, not strict historical analysis.
Some Christian scholars do better than others at remaining objective, but we must acknowledge that we WILL come to different conclusions due to our faith. Without that faith persuasion, we WOULD give less weight to certain documents than we do. Of course, the purely atheistic scholar would do the same in the opposite direction, since he also has an agenda, and is EQUALLY unscientific in his methods at times.
Of course, we believe that our additional insight is, actually, additional evidence for our search for the truth, and so in our personal studies, and even in our presentation of conclusions to fellow believers, it is absolutely necessary to add that additional insight into the mix. To do otherwise would be ignoring valuable evidence. But we can not expect the non-believer to be persuaded by that additional insight. There are simply two methods of study and, very often, two conclusions reached.
Having said that, Christian scholars need to make sure they are using the right “touchstones” as core “absolutes”, but that goes to Michael’s discussions regarding inerrancy, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
***From richards:
It sounds like this is more of an emotional appeal to leave a passage in the text without addressing the arguments Dan has brought up.
REPLY to richards:
What you have just perpetrated is the fallacious ad hominem mode of argumentation. Instead of addressing the points I make, you deflect by an attempt to call into question my means of argument—in other words, you make your point about me, rather than the issue at hand. I addressed the claims of Dr. Wallace in my link to the CE. I asked pertinent questions concerning what is the criteria by which texts are judged, and no one has addressed that—the comments have been mere discussion on where the assumed “faulty†texts should go, and now, a critique of my mode of prose.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
REPLY to all who consider removing portions of the Bible appropriate:
Let me be clear. If your sole infallible authority is the Bible, and that authority is deemed to have error according to your view, then, by your own point of view, you DENY the infallibility of your ONLY authority. By the suggestion that some of the claimed “infallible text†is, in fact fallible, you COMPLETELY negate your only claimed means of accessing the Divine Revelation of God. This begs the question—why should anyone believe anything you have to say? Who is your valid authority? You have destroyed your own means of credibility through the prideful negation of the “sacred.â€
The Jews had a teaching authority. The scriptures were sacred texts that were held as separate resources. http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/texts.htm
The Christian Bible was codified as a single inerrant Sacred text. What is known as the HOLY BIBLE was compiled from among myriad texts by a teaching authority that determined the veracity of those texts. This teaching authority determined what texts were properly considered divinely inspired because THEIR authority was given by Jesus Christ Himself. Prior to this codification of texts, there was no Holy Bible—there was only Sacred Oral Tradition, Sacred Jewish texts, and “modern†Epistles and Gospels. This teaching authority transmuted their Christ-given authority to the Sacred Texts of the people of the New Covenant and codified them as properly believed to be worthy of trust that the texts were God-breathed. Without the codification—the texts had no traceable authority. The authority of the teachers, by their historically Jewish and Christ-given power of “binding and loosing†finally, and infallibly, and without question, BOUND the texts as Holy Christian Scripture in the year 405, though the specific Canon had carried the authority of Sacred Tradition from much earlier. ~~Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) pp. 237–238;
Please explain this contradiction to me: Your beliefs rest wholly in your confidence in the inerrant, infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, and yet, many on this blog have found “error†and “fallibility†in these texts which, as testified by your willingness to alter the texts, are not at all “sacred.â€
Although I may sound assertive (polemic rather than irenic), and it may be off-putting to some of you, it is out of genuine concern. To violate the Sacred Texts of Christianity, I believe, could be seen as blasphemous. As your Sister in Christ, I am asking you to reconsider your position.
Matthew 18 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed [6] in heaven.
Peace be with you all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity, the question would be whether that text was included in what was originally canonized and deemed “sacred text”. If we hold to the idea that God chose those men at that time for that job, then we must look to what actual text they deemed holy. Now, I have not looked to see when those particular portions of the text were considered added, but if it was after the time that the Early Fathers deemed them part of the canon, then that answers your question. If those portions were in existence earlier than the canonization process, then I would agree with you completely, those portions of the text were chosen by the men assigned by God to gather the proper texts.
I could go dig out the details, but maybe Dan or someone else here has the dates of the various texts.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
Thank you for comments, they are very insightful.
The difficulty that I see currently is the shift from modern thinking; i.e. we can achieve everything and understand everything in reality through the scientific method, to the post-modern thinking i.e. we can’t really “know†things for certain, so it’s better if we allow people to interpret “facts†how they see best. This seems to have tremendous affects on scholarship and readership in regards to what we believe to be “scholarly†which in essence (it communicates to me this at least), “what really happened back thenâ€.
So it seems extremely difficult for me to grasp the idea that all scholars do not void themselves of their philosophical foundations when conducting their research and methology. In regard to the scientific method, does it not become extremely subjective and difficult to use in light of the fact that we interpret the “facts†in light of our current social and historical context while divorcing (reading about and living in a cultural are completely different things) the state in which they were originally intended to communicate in?
I understand this is what historians and scholars do (context, culture etc), but I don’t think you can have any objective perspectives on it, because they (secular & non-secular) are both influenced by their own prepositions on the “facts†whether they are indifferent to the issue or not.
To me it seems similar to asking 4 artists to paint a picture of the dog I saw today, they will all draw a dog, but they will come up with different details onto what they depict a dog to be, based on their personal experiences with dogs, what they have studied and understood dogs to be like. We can get even similar pictures if we tell them a certain type of dog they are familiar with, and even more similar if we tell them the hair and eye color, the expression of the dog, etc. Now did they represent the dog that I actually, in reality saw? They certainly represented it, but in reality, it was NOT the same dog that I saw. They brought in their own interpretations of my vision, which was not in tune with the picture of the dog that I experienced in reality.
So my question is why is it faulted religious scholars who come to conclusions using the same information that secular-scholars have that affirm their pre-supposed bias, when in fact secular scholars have their own bias on the interpretations of the “facts†(based on experience, level of understanding, etc) from the beginning as well?
Just my thoughts, I’m completely ignorant on the method in which historians do their work so I mean no disrespect to them, I’m just trying to understand and discover the philosophy that governs their methology.
Curious your thoughts,
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the reason why religious scholars are faulted more often is because they do it more often and/or to more effect. While it is true that even secular scholars have preconceptions and biases, it simply does not have as rigid a mandate in most cases. Most historians I have been around and most I have read do a much better job than the Christian scholar who MUST, as a matter of definition, let their preconception control their conclusion on many issues. This is not to fault the Christian scholar, since his faith is part of his “pool of evidence”, but to point out that he is basically following a fundamentally different process.
A good secular historian can truly strive for absolute objectivity, but will only reach that goal with varying degrees of success. The Christian scholar can not claim that goal AT ALL on certain issues. The atheist scholar is an odd mix. He can claim objectivity based on a lack of preconception, but his lack of belief is itself preconception which impacts his analysis.
The post-modern relativizing of history is an interesting phenomena. As a history major, you take courses like “what is history” learning about approaches which range from the very scientific which emphasizes the presentation of facts in a very scientific way, in an archival manner, letting others do the application and analysis and those who feel that the ONLY use for history is to find a useful application to modern times, and thus are in favor of reinterpreting in every generation to fit its needs. There is a constant tension between these two approaches. But the modern school is not dead yet!
Like or Dislike:
0
Just a quick note to everyone to keep things extremely civil. Go out of your way to be kind while not necessarily going out of your way to agree.
Like or Dislike:
0
To answer Vance: Although throughout Christendom the canon of Sacred texts was a matter of authoritative Sacred Tradition and clearly taught by the Magisterium of the Church, final Dogmatic closing of the Canon of Scripture occurred at the Council of Trent in 1546. I’m not certain, but I would hazard a guess the Dogmatic defining was predicated by Luther’s attempts to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations. The Catholic Church usually only dogmatically defines things when there is heresy afoot.
…Sounds eerily similar to today’s discussion, though today’s discussion is on a much smaller scale.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would not say “throughout Christendom” because there was a time before the first canonizations by synods and councils, and those occurred in the fourth century, IIRC. Augustine himself considered the canon closed at that point. So, I would use that time frame for determining whether these texts were present at the time the Church fathers made the canon official.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I already posted this evidence of the passage being accepted in the 4th century and earlier, but I’ll post the pertinent part to your qualifications again:
“It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the “Acts of Pilate”, the “Apostolic Constitutions”, and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark’s Gospel (“In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus”, etc.–Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the “Diatessaron”, and most probably by Justin (“Apol. I”, 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.â€
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm#III
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I think you bring up some very interesting comments about historians and their craft. Every historian I know (I did graduate work in history) would admit they have a bias or preconception about certain their particular field of history. The rub comes in when they say their bias is limited. I know in the department I was in there were ideological rivalries among professors. Their discussions would get quite heated as they each tried to defend their turf and particular historical world view from each other — usually in a collegial manner but not always. Sometimes they couldn’t even agree on what certain “facts” were — which led to an almost comical naysaying between the sides. So I doubt that secular scholars are any better then Christian scholars at working past bias and preconceptions and what is true and what isn’t.
As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t believe that faith and reason are incompatible. The Christian has absolutely nothing to fear from scholarship. I think that good, solid orthodox Christians of all stripes can do good solid historical research that stands up to peer review. I believe they can use the same tools and apply the same critical thinking skills that secular scholars do to their own research. Even to this day much great research and writing is going on at religiously affiliated universities. Many Catholic scholars are members of religious orders and are doing good research and archaeology in the Holy Land.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks, the comments here have gotten a little sidetracked and a little too pugilistic. If you recall, I said in the blog that I was not going to entertain the arguments about the authenticity of these two lengthy passages; rather, my question was whether we should remove such texts to the footnotes in light of the scholarly consensus. Perhaps that question was exhausted yesterday, prompting many of you to get into the details of the text.
Frankly, there are some people commenting who seem so angry that their vision is a bit blurry. When Westcott and Hort produced their magisterial Greek New Testament in 1881, there was a virulent reaction by the Dean of Chichester, John Burgon. He produced volumes about that the long ending of Mark needing to be retained, about “God†in 1 Timothy 3.16 needing to stay there instead of “who,†and some treatments of patristic quotations of the New Testament. Hort told Westcott that he wanted to read what Burgon had to say, but that the tone was so hostile and personal it was difficult for him to wade through the barrage. I would ask those of you who are on the emotional fence to tone it down a couple of notches. If you want others to hear what you’re saying, civility and substance will go a long way.
I won’t get into the details on this issue, but suffice it to say the following: As I’ve already mentioned, the great majority of New Testament scholars would regard both of these passages to be spurious. This is no surprise in scholarly circles; the opinion has held sway for over a century. I mean this with all charity, but it is really an argument out of ignorance to say that the reasons for these decisions are “based on any criteria you intellectualize.†If anyone wants to know the arguments for these various views, there is a wealth of information that you can consult. But I must insist that text-critical scholars do not do their work based on any criteria that they intellectualize.
Further, to argue that we have no right to take out parts of scripture or to add to it is also an argument that is not well founded. It really begs the question: What standard are you measuring things by? Is the standard the 1516 Erasmus Greek text? It radically changed things found in the manuscripts. Is the standard the Vulgate? If so, which version? The Vulgate is so corrupt in the copies that it’s very difficult to determine the original wording in many places. Is the standard a particular manuscript? If so, it should be noted that every single copy of scripture has either taken away or added to the text. For one thing, no scribe is perfect. Mistakes are made. For another, the scribes filled in data where there were ambiguities. So, again the question is relevant: What standard should we use to claim that some scholars are taking away from scripture? I am inclined to think that what biblical scholarship has done in the past five hundred years is to burn off the dross to get to the gold. Or to put it another way, it’s not that the modern translations are only 90% of the word of God; rather, the KJV is 110%!
Let me give some details. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are shorter than the later manuscripts. The earliest papyri, for example, do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery. The passage is not found in P66, P75, Aleph, A, or B. These are among the earliest manuscripts we have, from the second to the fifth century. If we say that these scribes have cut out part of the word of God, on what basis are we arguing that? No patristic commentary on the passage exists until centuries after these papyri were penned. So, is it not possible that later scribes added the passage to scripture rather than that early ones omitted it?
Now, admittedly, that discussion is over an emotionally-charged passage. Let’s consider something that is probably a bit less significant to most of us. It has to do with the “Amen†that is found at the end of some of the New Testament letters. Some later manuscripts have the “Amen†at the end of ALL the letters, while others have it only at the end of some of them. The evidence from the manuscripts is so overwhelming that we would be foolish to read “Amen†at the end of each letter. But if the standard that one is following is one of these later manuscripts, he or she might think that the earlier scribes perverted scripture. I would call that a knee-jerk reaction that is unworthy of our allegiance to Christ. Precisely because God clothed himself with humanity in time-space history, because the scriptures are written in such a way that intentionally risks historical inquiry, we do not honor Christ if we close our eyes and say no to history.
Three other points. First, the Greek text that stands behind the KJV has about 5000 differences (yes, that’s three zeroes) from the modern Greek texts. Yet the KJV base was produced by a Catholic priest who was in a race to get the first Greek New Testament published on a printing press. His first edition has been called the most poorly edited book ever produced. It was based essentially on half a dozen late manuscripts, from the tenth century on. The modern translations, on the other hand, are based on manuscripts that come from as early as the second century. And instead of half a dozen, we now know of almost 6000 Greek manuscripts (let alone tens of thousands in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages). In other words, modern translations are based on about one thousand times as many manuscripts as the KJV, and they predate the Greek manuscripts of the KJV by almost a millennium. Are we really going to say that those manuscripts have, in every instance, removed portions of the word of God? Is it not possible that the text has grown over time? Further, modern translations do not always shorten the text (i.e., by omitting words, phrases, clauses). In nearly 700 places, the text behind the KJV is shorter. This at least shows that scholars are not trying to chop up the text. They are seriously investigating the data and going where the evidence leads them.
Second, in case some readers are not KJV-Only advocates, but think that the Catholic Bibles are the only way to go, you should realize that the RSV and NRSV both received the imprimatur. Yet these modern translations are based on modern Greek texts. Catholics were on the translation committees. And they reversed the decisions about what the original text said from earlier generations of Catholics. Are we going to blame these scholars for using whatever criteria suits their fancy?
Third, the standard critical text of the Greek New Testament that is used today had five editors on the committee. One was a Greek Orthodox scholar, Johannes Karavidopoulos. Another was a Roman Catholic scholar, Cardinal Carlo Martini, formerly the Archbishop of Milan (from 1980 to 2002). Martini was highly considered for the papal office, too. The point is that Martini is a squeaky-clean Catholic with impeccable credentials. Yet, on the committee for the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, he agreed with the rest of the committee (it was a unanimous decision each time) that Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11 were not original to the Gospels but were added later. These, of course, are the most visible examples. But the committee made thousands of decisions and most of them received unanimous votes. Further, between the four editions produced since 1966, there were changes made—often because of recent discoveries, often because of new insights about an author’s language, argument, etc. That the same committee members could reverse themselves in light of better evidence shows the integrity of the work. It simply is a cheap shot to say that these scholars based their decisions on any criteria that they intellectualized.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad, I agree completely and I have seen many of those knock-down drag-outs in my day! People DO become passionate about their positions, no doubt. But they hold them on an individual basis, not usually collectively (although there are “schools of thought”, etc), and even then they are not “believed” in the same sense as our religious faith. I think these two biases and preconception approaches are not the same, kind of apples and oranges in most cases. One is at least theoretically open to change, and theoretically developed FROM the evidence, whereas religious belief is neither. I have never seen any secular historian claim to be free of bias, but I think it is much easier in the big picture. After all, you and I are biased and proud of it!
Eventually, in secular scholarship, consensuses develop which are based on the material evidence at the time. If there is insufficient evidence, then there often remain competing theories, but with enough independent thinkers, the best conclusions based on the evidence acceptable to secular scholars does tend to come to the top. It is that “acceptable” evidence bit that becomes the issue between the secular scholars and those of Christian faith.
I do agree that any Christian scholar can do great historical work, and many do. But the problem arises when the area of study coincides with an area of faith. At that point, the Christian scholar very often faces a dilemma. He has to recognize that his faith has no evidentiary value to those of no faith, and that when he is presenting to both Christian and secular audiences, bringing in evidence believed by faith will count as no evidence. At the same time, it is very often the faith itself which causes him to come to a particular conclusion, not just the data itself. He must admit to himself, in intelletual honesty that, absent his faith, the material evidence on its own would most likely not lead to that conclusion, or at least not as convincingly. Not in every case, but in many.
In those situations, the Christian scholar can go ahead and make a case based entirely on the material evidence that points to his conclusion, but this carries a certain amount if intellectual dishonesty since he KNOWS that his conclusion was reached in large part due to his faith. He KNOWS that he is really doing historical apologetics as much as pure history.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I understand completely what you are saying. I think you are correct to point out that their faith does inform their intellectual inquiries and that it does point them somewhat in another direction. I’m not sure it’s intellectual dishonesty — perhaps only if they argued that their faith had nothing to do with their research. I can’t think of any glaring examples here to give.
As a general note on this topic I think that in general a continual reassessment of what we know and how we know it is not only necessary but a good thing. The way Americans understand their history is considerably different than say it was in 1960, which was much different than it was in 1900.
So if the best evidence and informed scholarly opinions say these two passages are not part of the original documents then perhaps they should be relegated to footnotes. As Christians in search of our roots and trying to be as certain as possible of an accurate and faithful translation of our scriptures we need to undertake and not be afraid of the answers we come to. Even if it means relegating to footnotes two passages that many of us grew up with.
Vance — I’d say I’m proud of my bias and wear it proudly on my sleeve.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace:
I don’t know what posts you refer to as “pugilistic†and “on the emotional fence†and imply a lack of “civility and substance,†but I assume you refer to mine, since you directly quote me, though you don’t name me. Since I am not interested in the textual criticisms of my own writing, suffice it to say, I am sorry that you see my disagreement as a personal attack of some sort. Unlike you, I have not attempted to malign any individual as “angry†and arguing “out of ignorance,†or characterized any claim as a “cheap shot.†If you intend to offer personal advice on my literary voice, I would humbly suggest you remove the log from your own eye prior to attending to the speck in mine.
It seems very clear to me that the “substance†contained in my posts has been roundly ignored in favor of finding some sort of fault with my particular writing style. This is evident in the fact no one yet has bothered to explain the INHERENT contradiction in the professed belief that the Bible is sacred, inerrant, and infallible yet, as you characterize a passage that likely wasn’t written by Mark as “spurious.†Spurious denotes falsehood—a bastardization of the text. That would mean the text is NOT infallible. If the text is not infallible, and you find a portion that you believe should not be there, then the text is NOT inerrant. If the text is not infallible or inerrant, and to “remedy†the “spurious†nature of the text you propose altering the text, there is NO sacredness concerning the Bible as a whole and complete authoritative body.
This inherent contradiction casts doubt on the religious connotations of all this textual criticism. This is so in that no longer is the study of the text a means to come to know God’s revelation more deeply, it is merely human literary historical criticism sans the eternal implications. It is no longer a sacred, inerrant, infallible, authoritative text, it is a mere historical document scrutinized for individual authorship. This is not evangelization, this is “intellectualization†of the texts.
In order to see the Bible as the word of God, there is a degree of faith one must have. Faith is trust in the revelation given us by God. Reducing the texts to single authorship, or authorial intent, or earliest possible known sources, calls into question God’s means of revelation. God did many things “in the fullness of time.†God allows for development and growth. However, when He imposes a final decree, He acts swiftly and definitively through His ministers.
Vance seems to have understood the implications I suggested in my prior posts—He also seems to have seen the clear standard I put forth for measuring the authenticity of Biblical reference. Since you, Dr. Wallace, seem to have overlooked it, I refer you to post number 33, the paragraph right under the “religionfacts†web-source. In a nutshell—the standard is: Authentic, authoritative texts are those codified via those whose authority to do so can be traced to the apostles.
If a mere consensus of “scholars†with no traceable apostolic authority can determine what is claimed to be the word of the Almighty God to His people, then all of Christianity is relative to the whim of the modern sensibilities of those who elevate their own intellect to the level of mouthpieces for God. What is the difference between that willful elevation of intellect and what the serpent in the garden encouraged Eve to commit? The serpent told her “you will be like God, knowing good and evil†and in her desire to claim for herself the authority of God rather than live in obedience, she brought sin and death into the world. The serpent is the father of lies—Eve already knew what was good an evil, but her self-interested desire to be like God clouded her willingness to be obedient to the Divine Providence of the Creator.
God—in His Providence—provides a means for man to know His Will; we merely must be obedient to His revealed Truth that has been consistent and immutable throughout all time. God has always raised up leaders who are clearly given His authority among His people—and he punishes those who challenge that authority. One example is when Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses saying, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?â€
God then spoke to them and addressed the affront, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?†9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.
10 When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, [1] like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us [2] because we have done foolishly and have sinned.
I believe in the infallible, inerrant, authoritative Biblical texts in that I trust God’s chosen servants. Christ built his Church on a foundation of Rock—not the shifting sands of scholars who appoint themselves the mouthpieces of God and elevate their own intellect rather than choose obedience to His design. What need of God does man have if he believes “the tree of knowledge is good and pleasing†and chooses that tempting fruit over humble obedience? That man chooses himself rather than God. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.â€
Prayerfully submitted,
Felicity
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity,
I have sensed the same tone as Dan in these latest exchanges. I’m afraid that this is one of those areas where many Catholics have painted themselves into a corner and must defend the indefensible.
You said:
“If a mere consensus of “scholars†with no traceable apostolic authority can determine what is claimed to be the word of the Almighty God to His people, then all of Christianity is relative to the whim of the modern sensibilities of those who elevate their own intellect to the level of mouthpieces for God.”
This “mere consensus of ‘scholars’” has necessarily become irrelevant because you are not allowed, in this case, to consider the evidence since it goes against the Vatican. This is too bad. This tendency is one of the primary reasons why I am neither a Catholic nor a KJV Only advocate. Both appeal to the comfort of a supposed infallibility rather than look at the evidence and follow it wherever it leads. While you claim “apostolic authority,” there is an elephant in the room which amounts to a denial of the authority of evidences. God made evidences to point to truth, not to mislead us from the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad, I think where the “intellectual dishonesty” (much too strong of a word, I admit) could come in would be in stating a case on the material evidence alone AS convincing when you know that, absent your faith, it may well NOT be convincing, or at least not as convincing as you are presenting the case.
It can come up in situations in which there is evidence on both sides of an issue (say, historicity of the patriarchal accounts or the Exodus or the invasion the promise land). The Christian scholar will start with the presumption that it is strictly historical, based on his faith. He can then find a lot of material evidence to support that conclusion, but if he was honest with himself, he would admit that there is evidence both ways and that, absent his faith presumption, he would very likely reach a different conclusion.
Now, when that scholar presents that case historically, he could very possibly present it AS IF the material evidence alone was sufficient to reach the conclusion of historicity. He will not say “if I were to base my conclusion solely on the material evidence, I may be undecided on this issue, or even hold that it is most likely NOT strictly historical, but I am a Christian and my faith tells me it is historical, so that is what I believe.”
Now, I admit that the human psyche works very differently and if you believe something based on faith, it is difficult to have that level of self-reflection to admit what you might conclude absent that faith. If there is evidence there, we tend subconsciously to weight it most favorably to our pre-existing beliefs. But I will admit that I hold many stories in Scripture as more historical than the evidence alone would support (even though I am not by any means a holder to strict literal historical narrative in all passages).
Like or Dislike:
0
***From CMP:
I have sensed the same tone as Dan in these latest exchanges.
REPLY:
As I said, I am not particularly interested in textual criticism of my writing. My tone is polite and pointed. I offer my comments with honesty and conviction. I do not need to be critical of others to bolster the veracity of what I am saying.
***From CMP:
I’m afraid that this is one of those areas where many Catholics have painted themselves into a corner and must defend the indefensible.
You said:
“If a mere consensus of “scholars†with no traceable apostolic authority can determine what is claimed to be the word of the Almighty God to His people, then all of Christianity is relative to the whim of the modern sensibilities of those who elevate their own intellect to the level of mouthpieces for God.â€
This “mere consensus of ’scholars’†has necessarily become irrelevant because you are not allowed, in this case, to consider the evidence since it goes against the Vatican.
REPLY:
This is simply false. This is the ugly head of prejudice that claims another’s faith in their understanding of the means of God’s revelation is mere obedience to a man-made dictum. Please refer again to the passage concerning Aaron and Miriam. God chooses upon whom His authority rests—the obedience is to God.
***From CMP:
Both appeal to the comfort of a supposed infallibility rather than look at the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.
REPLY:
Again, I say this is a prejudiced conjecture. I ask you, when reading the Scriptures, what “authority†do you look to? You suggest that “Catholics have painted themselves into [some unnamed] corner†that is “indefensible,†I suggest, rather, that you have painted yourself into an indefensible corner. That corner is the “Authorial Intent†or “Historical Grammatical†hermeneutic itself.
As you stated in your “how to perform a Gnostic Bible study†blog, “We are held accountable to those who have gone before us, knowing that God’s spirit was with them as well and we had better think seriously about departing from them theologically, yet the rightly interpreted Scripture (when available) is our ultimate and only infallible authority†(bottom, post 42).
First: In striking out some of the text of the canon of the Bible itself due to a perceived problem with single authorship, you strike out the Divine Editor who is ultimately the Author of the texts in question. You deny your accountability “to those who have gone before us, knowing that God’s spirit was with them†in favor of your own “modern consensus†as to what criteria testifies to the authenticity of divinely inspired texts. If single authorship is a requirement—many many passages and whole books of the Bible can be stricken. I do not think that is your ultimate goal, but that is where this hermeneutical criteria leads.
Second: You mention a lurking elephant. The elephant in the room is not “the denial of the authority of evidences†as Catholics most definitely believe the evidence is very clearly in support of Catholic Dogma (though you dismiss that conclusion based on your bias that Catholics abdicate their intellect when agreeing with their Magisterium—it’s really a catch-22 you devise—I wonder how you rationalize Dr. Beckwith’s conversion—but that is afield if the current issue). No…The elephant trumpets loud and clear that his presence is in the statement “the rightly interpreted Scripture (when available) is our ultimate and only infallible authority.â€
That elephant is, in fact, the relativist nature of your words “rightly interpretedâ€â€”and that elephant stands squarely at the bottom of your “Authorial Intent†hermeneutic. At its core, your professed hermeneutic is ultimately a reader response criticism which you ironically condemned in the “Gnostic Bible study†blog as “lucky-lotto hermeneutics.†You rely on relativistic consensus of scholars with no known verification but their own intellect and letters after their names to determine what is “rightly interpreted†and consider that “infallible.†Infallibility is immutable, or else it fails. Something cannot be infallible and changeable. Since “rightly interpreted†per an unverified consensus is changeable (as evidenced by this current discussion about removing sacred text), by definition, it cannot be infallible. Your method fails—it is fallacious at its foundation.
Lastly, we do agree, however, on your final point: “God made evidences to point to truth, not to mislead us from the truth.†I would only add, “those who have ears ought to hear.â€
Sincerely,
Felicity
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I understand exactly what you mean. “Intellectual dishonest” would be too strong a term. Perhaps we could settle for “overstating or exaggerating the case.” I think that would apply when somebody dismisses one possibility for another when both or more are possible based only upon the available evidence.
In scholarly discussions appealing to the Bible as an ultimate source for the veracity of a story will raise many eyebrows for the reason you mentioned that it is based upon faith. To a Christian it would be like a Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist quoting their sriptures as proof of the historical veracity of a story based upon the presupposition that they consider their books to be holy and must be true since they consider it to be inspired.
Like you, I hold the stories in the Bible as being quite historical even if all the evidence isn’t there (I don’t hold to a strict literal interpretation either). Has any evidence been found that corroborates the Gospel story of Herod ordering the slaughter of the children?
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad, I know of no direct evidence outside of Scripture, but we do have the very useful circumstantial evidence of Herod’s nature. That type of action fits entirely within his paranoid nature and his perfect willingness to perform such murders. In history, as you know, this helps in eliminating one argument AGAINST it being accurate: that it is not plausible in historical context. And, of course, the scriptural texts ARE historical evidence, even in purely secular terms. They are accounts written about past events (even if not with the same type of “writing history” intent we moderns would have) within a couple of decades of the events. While a secular scholar, such as Ehrman, would critique the source based on a rubric he has for evaluating the likely accuracy of each text, even he would admit that they are valuable historical documents.
It is definitely an historical scandal, as far as I am concerned, that the texts of the NT are not treated as historical texts in their own right. Since they are also theological texts, too many people write them off altogether as historical sources. Even the most critical non-believing scholar, like Ehrman, should still be able to sift and glean this source as a valuable insight into both the minds of the first century and, yes, events as well. To toss them out because they might arguably contain more bias than, say, Tacitus or Pliny or Josephus, is just bad historical process.
There is an excellent book on on Acts, btw, written about 100 years ago called St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, which analyzes the text of Acts AS pure history, concluding that Luke was, indeed, a dedicated and accurate historian. A classic work and a good read.
Like or Dislike:
0
Correction: the gospels were not, of course, written “within a couple of decades” after the events of Herod and the slaughter. That was just some loose writing, but I think you gather my meaning.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
When I brought up the story of Herod I was just mainly wondering if I’d missed some extra-Biblical evidence. It appears that I haven’t. I have a slight familiarity with Herod’s reign and he was a pretty bad guy all around and certainly his well documented character argues against the possibility that he couldn’t or wouldn’t have ordered such a huge slaughter.
I think scholars do themselves a huge disservice by only treating the Bible as a theological document. We know through the numerous manuscripts available, that the books as we have them have been passed on for thousands of years and contain the passages as the original authors originally intended. Right there is one thing in favor of at least seriously investigating the scriptures as reliable witnessesses. At least a few of the events recorded in the Gospels and other Biblical books are a corroborated by outside evidence. These two reasons alone seem to me to be enough reason to at least give the Bible a critical & serious evaluation as a viable historical document.
I know for a long time many scholars claimed the Exodus was a myth and that no Hebrews had ever lived in ancient Egypt. I saw a show on the Discovery channel I believe where another scholar argued that everybody’s dating for the Exodus was off by several hundred years. His research which included previously overlooked evidence, placed the Exodus much earlier and in another pharoah’s reign. He said it would be like looking for evidence of WWII fighting in the 2000s and when none is found claiming it never happened. Of course I don’t know if other scholars have accepted this new dating, but he seems to make a good case.
Anyhow, thanks for that reference on St. Paul. I’ll have to see if I can track that book down. It sounds quite interesting.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity, you said, “If you intend to offer personal advice on my literary voice, I would humbly suggest you remove the log from your own eye prior to attending to the speck in mine.” Felicity, I have more than one log in my own eye, of that I am acutely aware! But can you offer me specifics? I’d like to know how I offended you in my comments. If it was my pointing out some were being a bit too pugilistic, I don’t think that to make that comment is itself pugilistic. If I didn’t mention you by name it was because the comment applied to more than you. You do seem to take things very personally, and the tone of your comments doesn’t seem to irenically engage with others. You’re a very intelligent person, but if you continue down a path of seeming to think that you’re always right and that the rest of us are always wrong unless we agree with you (not something you’ve said, but certainly the tone many have picked up from what you’ve written), I don’t think you’ll do much to influence folks. I am hoping for a more positive exchange of ideas, a completely civil discussion among Christians.
It is true that I have not responded to certain details of your argument; at the same time, you have not responded to any of the details of mine. I didn’t get your opinion about Cardinal Carlo Martini’s work on the New Testament (but in general, you seemed to condemn his posture which, frankly, surprised me), nor about what standard we would use to determine which readings are authentic and which are not? As for the inerrancy issue, I think a distinction needs to be made between inerrancy and inspiration. Human beings make inerrant statements all the time; we don’t make inspired statements (in the sense of biblical inspiration), except of course when quoting scripture! By mixing these two categories, you set yourself for a position that is, I believe, indefensible. You claim that we need to accept the Bible on faith. However, the fundamental issue of which version of the Bible is not answered. Which Bible should I accept? And if I choose the wrong one, aren’t I in danger of embracing a text that is not inerrant according to you?
BTW, if any of you would like to see my treatment of how we can affirm the inerrancy of the original text without having the original text (where I also make a distinction between inerrancy and inspiration), I’ve posted it at 4truth.net: http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784441&ct=1799301
Like or Dislike:
0
***From DW:
I’d like to know how I offended you in my comments.
REPLY:
I was not offended–merely pointing out that the tone you ascribe to me without any specific reference is unwarranted, and that by virtue of the diction you chose and I quoted, it may be helpful for you to reevaluate your own tone. I do not make personal comments about others—there is no need. Analysis of tone is very subjective, as is your suggestion that I “seem to take things very personally†and “think that you’re always right and that the rest of us are always wrong unless we agree with you.†All of that is your mere perception. We have the blog as a record—anyone interested in verifying your claims is welcome to do so. Having conviction of one’s position and backing it with evidence is certainly not pugnacious, nor haughty. Statements are statements—you are welcome to contradict the statements and evidence I offer contrary to the issue of this blog, but please do so with your own evidence (as you have) sans the critique of my personality or writing style. To be frank, it is really off topic, in my opinion bordering on appearing to be rhetorical red herrings in an attempt to discredit me, and of little interest to anyone but conflict gawkers. I merely want to discuss the error of Faith by Consensus and the inherent contradictions in the mode of religiosity that assumes man can access the mind of God by building a hermeneutic that resembles, in my opinion, the building of the Tower of Babel.
***From DW:
I didn’t get your opinion about Cardinal Carlo Martini’s work on the New Testament
REPLY:
I did not respond to that because it is irrelevant to the way I view Sacred Scripture. It is irrelevant that the text may have been –even likely was—written by someone other than Mark because what gives Scripture its authority is that those successors of the Apostles who were charged by Christ Himself with the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, codified the text that contained that section of likely non-Marcan authorship—thus BINDING the text that include those verses as infallible—God-breathed—Holy Scripture. The origin is moot as is anyone’s (including a Cardinal’s) opinion on it.
Much of your post dealt with the assumption that opinions of individual Catholics, and especially those who hold high office in the Church, on the matter hold some weight or sway in and of itself. It does not. The Magisterium is a body of teachers—and they speak with one voice on matters that are intended to be binding—with the Pope, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, as the final word sanctioning such binding Dogmas. There are a minor number of overtly defined “Dogmas,†but the Canon of Sacred Scripture is one that falls under #IV.13 & 15 http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
***From DW:
nor about what standard we would use to determine which readings are authentic and which are not?
REPLY:
Again, I did. And I also referenced you back to it as well as summarized it. It is also a matter of record on this blog—(post #33)
***From DW:
You claim that we need to accept the Bible on faith.
REPLY:
We accept the Bible on the transmuted authority of those that codified it. That was also stated in the portion I referenced you to—(post #33)
***From DW:
However, the fundamental issue of which version of the Bible is not answered. Which Bible should I accept?
REPLY:
The one codified by those with apostolic authority who drew the texts together and first identified them as inspired Holy Scripture—(post #33)
***From DW:
And if I choose the wrong one, aren’t I in danger of embracing a text that is not inerrant according to you?
REPLY:
Absolutely.
Sincerely,
Felicity
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity, I’m trying to get my mind around what you’re saying to me. A fundamental question that I have asked is, Which Bible should I accept? You responded, “The one codified by those with apostolic authority who drew the texts together and first identified them as inspired Holy Scripture.†That’s a helpful comment on one level because it deals with the method by which you understand what scripture is. However, it doesn’t help me in terms of content. Can you direct me to the authoritative, divinely inspired Bible? Which version is it? Or, if not a version, which Greek or Latin manuscript(s)? You even said that if I choose the wrong one, I will end up with an errant text. So, obviously, it’s important to use the right text. Which one do you use? And if it is a non-English text, what edition is it?
Like or Dislike:
0
From the Council of Trent:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Currently the Latin translation that is approved for liturgical use in the Catholic Church is the Nova Vulgata, but if you’re interested in the oldest known copy true to Jerome’s translation and the basis for Trent’s Dogmatic statement, you will want to look to the Codex Amiatinus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm
I use the Revised Standard Version Ignatius Bible Catholic Edition for my personal study, but generally I will quote the preferred text (if I know it) of the person to whom I am speaking for their convenience—that is why when you cited ESV Bible online, I began using that one in my responses to you.
Sincerely,
Felicity
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, Felicity. That’s very helpful. I have some follow-up questions. Since Codex Amiatinus is corrupt (though certainly less so than most other Pandect Vulgate manuscripts), how is it possible for Trent to declare that anyone not using “the said books entire with all their parts†as found in “the old Latin vulgate edition†is anathema if they are basing this statement on Amiatinus? I may have misunderstood you here when I thought you spoke of thismanuscript as “the basis for Trent’s Dogmatic statement.†That codex is lacking Baruch, and has, as all manuscripts do, several omissions and additions that do not reflect its original (in this case, I’m speaking of the original as the Vulgate of Jerome, even though Jerome’s translation and those others who worked on the Vulgate did not do a consistently decent job of translating from the Greek or even using the best Greek witnesses to do so). If it’s missing Baruch, how could it be the basis for the dogma of Trent? Wouldn’t that particular manuscript itself be condemned? And since it has demonstrable errors, does that also remove it as a reliable copy of inspired scripture? Further, let’s even assume that this lone eighth century manuscript got it all right (except for Baruch, of course). Who would have access to it? The pronouncement of Trent was still awaiting a decent printedcopy of the Vulgate. And the church would have to wait for centuries before one came along. What were Christians to use until that time? Not too many could travel to Florence to see Amiatinus, and even if they could, most would not be allowed into the Biblioteca Laurenziana to look over this copy of scripture. I have been there to study some of their manuscripts, and I must say it’s a marvelous library. I’ve also studied manuscripts in several other Roman Catholic monasteries and sites (I even spent a week with Codex Vaticanus in Rome six years ago), but I understand that for the most part unless one is a professor at the university level or higher (or an assistant to a professor), access to these manuscript libraries is forbidden. Five guards with AK-47s at the Vatican are a visual reminder of the tight security that we had to walk through! So, for all practical purposes, Amiatinus is off-limits.
Here’s the problem: If Amiatinus is king as far as the true manuscripts are concerned, then the entire Church for nearly 1500 years has had to rest their faith on inferior manuscripts. Few have had access to this lone copy. Does that cause a problem for you? Does it cause a problem for you to use the very scriptures in your own study (the RSV) that could be under the condemnation of Trent (in spite of them later getting the imprimatur)? I think if I read the words of Trent the way you seem to have (and again, I suspect I am wrong here in how you read the statement from Trent; but your quoting of Rev 22.18-19 with the emphasis on words being added to or subtracted from scripture suggests that this is how you view Trentine dogma), then every handwritten copy of scripture ever written in any language must be condemned.
And when it comes to what is printed, the various versions of the Vulgate differ in many and significant places. Gutenberg’s was hardly a masterpiece of textual fidelity, being based on simply the manuscripts at his disposal, which did not, as a whole, reflect the earliest form of the text very well. But this underscores again the state of chaos that existed prior to the Council of Trent’s edict. After Gutenberg, Stephanus, who is better known for producing four editions of the Greek New Testament, published four editions of the Vulgate between 1528 and 1540. Each differed from the last, and this version was never authorized. Then, the Council of Trent decreed in 1546 that any copy of the Vulgate be printed with the fewest possible errors and that such a Vulgate must follow the ancient text handed down to the church as carefully as it could. The first authoritative text to follow this was Pope Sixtus’ text (known as the Sistine Vulgate) in 1590. So, here was a text that, finally, we could say was authoritative, an exact copy of the Vulgate.
Not so. It had so many mistakes in it that the remaining copies were removed from circulation ten days after the pope died! Two and a half years later another edition was published by Pope Clement VIII (known as the Clementine Vulgate), and it changed the previous pope’s Vulgate in 3000 places! Apparently, the former one was done rather hastily; it apparently did not follow Trent’s decree of extreme accuracy. But the Clementine text created errors as well as disagreeing with the former edition. To the extent that the former edition was right and the Clementine Vulgate was wrong, Pope Clement may have been guilty of knowingly and deliberately condemning the traditional wording that he considered spurious. That’s a scary thought because, if true, it would mean he was anathema! This version of the Vulgate had to go through three editions before most of the errors were corrected. These are errors of wrong spelling, wrong wording, skipped words, and added words. Are these errors that Trent condemned and Pope Clement himself was responsible for? Did he really live up to the standard of Trent—printed with the fewest errors possible? And what about the deliberate changes to the text that number in the thousands? If you press the point about errors in wording, even to the detail of adding or subtracting a single word (a la Rev 22.18-19), it seems that you are inevitably led to see that a pope was responsible for creating a copy of the scripture that was damnable. Yet this translation, the Clementine Vulgate, became the official Latin Vulgate until 1979, when it was superseded by the Nova Vulgata. So, for four hundred years, one version of the Vulgate has been considered the inspired text of scripture—in large measure because it was faithful to the oldest traditions found in the earliest manuscripts, even thought it was known to be imperfect.
To this point in history we are left with no definitive Bible that can escape the scowl of Trent. And most ironically, it was the Clementine Vulgate that was declared the official Vulgate for hundreds of years, even while better, more faithful Vulgates were being produced. Take, for example, the Vulgate of John Wordsworth and H. J. White. The three-volume work, which took more than sixty years to complete, was based largely on codex Amiatinus, but not slavishly (especially not in places where the scribe of Amiatinus committed obvious blunders!). Here was a published text, though, that was closer to the original Vulgate and superior to the Clementine Vulgate, yet it never received authorization to supplant Clement’s work. I’m not sure why that is the case, but I wonder if perhaps it had something to do with the editors being Protestants. I don’t recall anything in the Trent document that says the editors of the Vulgate had to be Catholics (I strongly suspect it’s there; I just didn’t see it). But if it’s OK to be a Protestant and work on a Bible translation that could get papal imprimatur, then why didn’t the Wordsworth-White Vulgate get it? It’s based on the very manuscript that Trent endorsed. Why, then, was it overlooked? I can’t help but think that the decree of Trent either didn’t mean what it sounds like it means or else there is some ‘flexibility’ in how it has been applied (i.e., the most accurate Vulgate that was not produced by Protestants).
In passing, the Stuttgart Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (1969), produced by an international and inter-confessional community of scholars, has had an outstanding role in Vulgate studies. It may well come the closest to the original Vulgate of any out there. But again, this one was simply passed over by the Catholic Church. Perhaps because the whole committee was not made up of Catholics.
Finally, the Nova Vulgata comes along, commissioned by Pope John Paul II in 1979. Is this based on the oldest, most reliable tradition, as Trent declared it must be? It certainly has given a good attempt at this! But it should be noted that this Vulgate is a critical edition, reconstructed on the same kinds of principles that scholars use to reconstruct the original Greek text. So, either critically-reconstructed texts cannot be considered all bad or else this pope doesn’t represent the magisterium. Can you help me, here, Felicity? This is so confusing to me, it’s hard to know what Vulgate text Catholics should be reading. (I ask this in all seriousness.) It is possible that this text, far more than any other, will come the closest to reflecting the wording of the original Vulgate—including both those portions that Jerome penned and those that he did not. But even so, who’s to say that it won’t continue to have mistakes? Who’s to say that it won’t have faulty decisions on the part of these critically-trained scholars? Who’s to say that it will, finally, after nearly five hundred years, live to up to the decree of Trent as to what the Bible should look like? If the last half millennium is any indication, the Church has authorized Bibles that were woefully imperfect and filled with errors. Why should we trust them to get it right this time? I personally think that these Vulgate editions, for the most part, are improving. But it would be a myth to claim that we have ever had, or have now, a perfect copy of the Vulgate that deviates from the original not even a single word. If that is the case, to this extent, would you say that our Bibles are errant, fallible?
One more curious fact about the Nova Vulgata: the scholars, who were rigorous in following the critical principles of modern New Testament textual criticism, were so rigorous that they rejected several of Jerome’s renderings of the Greek even though they knew this was to go against tradition. In other words, in the official Vulgate that is used in the Catholic Church today, there seems to be a violation of the Trentine decree that calls for Bibles to stay true to the “old Latin vulgate version.†Does not Trent say that those who would “knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions†of this old Latin edition are to be considered anathema? If so, how is it possible that the pope could authorize the Nova Vulgata when the translators knowingly and deliberately corrected Jerome’s translation of the Greek in several places, resulting in a text that has never been traditional within the Latin Bible?
I, frankly, am very impressed by this bold move. It’s the same move that Erasmus took in 1516 when he produced the first Greek New Testament published on a printing press. It was a Greek and Latin diglot, and his Latin was a conscious, running corrigendum of Jerome’s translation. Of course, Erasmus’ text was never accepted by Catholics and it was in fact banned. But now, five hundred years later, the Nova Vulgata is doing the same kind of thing but under the endorsement of the Vatican. How can these things be?
I come back to my original question: Where is the Bible that you can point to as the authoritative word of God for a Catholic? From all I can see, it’s only one in theory, but the closest we can get to it is to follow the best critical scholarship, even as Pope John Paul II argued. In point of fact, the broad sweep of Vulgate history is that the editions are getting closer to what the original Vulgate said and, therefore, closer to the early Latin traditions, as they follow rigorously the best of critical scholarship. In the least, both the papacy and scholarship seem to be in league with each other.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace:
There are two issues, basically, that I see in your post—one is the question of what exactly is Sacred Scripture, and the other is issues concerning specific manuscripts. I believe that an understanding of what Catholics consider Sacred Scripture will go far to answer your particular concerns.
***From DW:
If it’s [Amiatinus] missing Baruch, how could it be the basis for the dogma of Trent? Wouldn’t that particular manuscript itself be condemned?
REPLY:
I knew when I posted that worded that way and couldn’t go back and edit this would be what I would have to write. When I offered the Amiatinus as the “basis for Trent’s Dogmatic statement†I overstated and over simplified in an attempt to give you the material you are interested in. Trent is very clear, and hence I supplied the link to the document. The section concerning what texts are Holy Scripture is short and answers most of your points concerning my personal error in representing it. Go to SESSION THE FOURTH: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
If Trent had meant THAT particular collection of books in the Amiatinus—that paper and ink—it would have said so. Rather, the “Scriptures†are the writings themselves—the essence that is recorded on paper in ink. Trent said “the old Latin vulgate edition†not “the Vulgate housed at the Vatican†or any “particular†manuscript. The Amiatinus is the oldest example of the codified Scriptures, but to understand Sacred Scripture as some book somewhere under lock and key that is to be venerated as the one supposed perfect Word of God itself, is to view the book itself as the Logos and take that title from Jesus Christ—it would be idolatry.
One thing that is important to understand concerning the Catholic view of what is authoritative teaching is that three things work in tandem to produce what most perfectly conveys what God has revealed: Sacred Oral Tradition, the Holy Scriptures, and the Magisterium. In other words—Catholics do not put all their eggs in a “printed†text, but rather the Scriptures, and Tradition, and the means to understand them clearly and cogently, are provided for in the Catholic faith.
Ultimately, the New Covenant Revelation was entrusted to a particular group of men and given them through experience with the God-Man and through the words He spoke to them. The “actual†Revelation of God can only be conveyed imperfectly through various testimony (as Paul explains: “in a mirror dimlyâ€). However, all Christians have faith that the testimony they receive is incorrupt in that, though it is not our individual re-experiencing of the actual Revelation given only to the Apostles, it is the most accurate representation of that experience possible and that the essence is inerrant and infallible. That testimony comes to us FIRST through the Apostles themselves—then through their oral teaching, and then through the written word. To the Catholic—that testimony is equally conveyed through Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Written Tradition—the latter being what is known as Sacred Scripture.
***From DW:
And since it has demonstrable errors, does that also remove it as a reliable copy of inspired scripture?
REPLY:
To understand your position better, Are you saying should strive to find THE one single text that has all the books of Scripture bound together and without any humanly imposed errors such as a misplaced letter or a slip in spelling in order for you to consider it “reliable?†That rigidity is likely what led the author of the book you discussed in your opening to lose his FAITH.
Because Catholics can rely on the Church as well as the Traditional Scriptures, our faith is not bound to being able to point to the “perfect†written word and are rather free to worship the Perfect Word—as in Jesus. Again, Scripture is not the Logos—Jesus is. He revealed Himself to the Apostles, and they took Him to the whole world before anything was written of the New Covenant.
***From DW:
Who would have access to it? The pronouncement of Trent was still awaiting a decent printedcopy of the Vulgate. And the church would have to wait for centuries before one came along. What were Christians to use until that time? Not too many could travel to Florence to see Amiatinus, and even if they could, most would not be allowed into the Biblioteca Laurenziana to look over this copy of scripture. So, for all practical purposes, Amiatinus is off-limits.
REPLY:
To me… raising a “printed†copy to this level of adoration seems idolatrous.
The Amiatinus is merely a book—not God—nor in and of itself THE One Holy Bible. It is merely a representation—as all Bibles are—of what God has given man. Even if Jerome’s original text was found in perfect condition—it would still be a mere “copy†of the Sacred Scriptures. We cannot get our hand on the very letter of Paul to the Romans—it is lost to antiquity—and if we could, would that letter have no errors? I doubt it, Paul even remarks about his lousy handwriting! Further, the Revelation given Paul was experienced only by Paul on his journey to Damascus. We cannot experience God’s actual revelation as Paul did—we can know it only by his authoritative testimony to it. If you seek THE one piece of literature written by God’s very hand, you will have to find the ark of the covenant and locate those tablets from Mount Sinai. Traditional Scripture is the essence of God’s word—not God’s Word—that Word is Jesus, the God-Man.
***From DW:
Here’s the problem: If Amiatinus is king as far as the true manuscripts are concerned, then the entire Church for nearly 1500 years has had to rest their faith on inferior manuscripts.
REPLY:
That is only if the Scriptures are the manuscripts—they are not. They are the essence of what has been revealed and then taught through Sacred Tradition—the manuscripts are the means to know that revelation, but they are merely paper and ink and that is why Sacred Tradition is so “Sacredâ€â€”Jesus gave to His Apostles a weighty duty, but He provided them with the Advocate at Pentecost—Jesus DID NOT give His Apostles a manuscript imbued with His Glory.
***From DW:
(and again, I suspect I am wrong here in how you read the statement from Trent; but your quoting of Rev 22.18-19 with the emphasis on words being added to or subtracted from scripture suggests that this is how you view Trentine dogma),
REPLY:
That is correct, and I hope my above admission of overstatement and the link to Trent clarifies.
***From DW:
To this point in history we are left with no definitive Bible that can escape the scowl of Trent.
REPLY:
Because you are looking for ONE printed manuscript and Scripture is the testimony contained in texts that were codified—not the books or paper and ink themselves.
The history you convey of the printing of manuscripts is as accurate as I am aware, but again…Catholic belief concerning Scripture is not so rigid as apparently your position is and it is likely because we rely on Sacred Tradition in conjunction with the Sacred Scriptures. People are people—even popes and cardinals and bishops—error occur in the mundane minutia of human life. Human error of “printing†does not corrupt the testimony of the Apostles to the Revelation entrusted to them by God.
***From DW:
I don’t recall anything in the Trent document that says the editors of the Vulgate had to be Catholics (I strongly suspect it’s there; I just didn’t see it). But if it’s OK to be a Protestant and work on a Bible translation that could get papal imprimatur, then why didn’t the Wordsworth-White Vulgate get it?
REPLY:
Did the WW-Vulgate have what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books and what Protestants call the Apocrypha? I’m certain there was much tension in the Church concerning what Luther and some others had done to the unity of the Church and I don’t doubt there was hesitancy to extend any sort of legitimacy to what is viewed as a heretical schism. however…your continued speculation on more modern bias is really just speculation and not particularly fair, in my opinion. Perhaps the Stuttgart (1969) isn’t used because it lacks punctuation and uses classic spellings and the purpose of “vulgate†is to have the text in the common language for ease of reading by the masses.
***From DW:
So, either critically-reconstructed texts cannot be considered all bad or else this pope doesn’t represent the magisterium. Can you help me, here, Felicity? This is so confusing to me, it’s hard to know what Vulgate text I should be reading.
REPLY:
Perhaps looking to what Scripture is, rather than to an individual manuscript, would be of benefit. And, perhaps reconsidering the means of God’s revelation in your life would be of benefit. God didn’t leave you with this mess of manuscripts—He gave you the Logos and He gave you a teaching authority protected by the Advocate—the Scriptures are the written form of that revelation, but not a “single†specific manuscript. The Tradition that underpins Scripture testifies to its authenticity—and concerning such passages in Mark you are personally willing to relegate to a footnote—the early Church Fathers have testified to their authenticity by their use of the text as profitable for teaching and instruction. Whereas you seem to only rely on what can be pointed to in a “particular text,†the Catholic Church “stand[s] firm and hold[s] to the traditions that you were taught…either by our spoken word or by our letter.†2Thes 2:15 .
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
Thank you so much for your link above to your article regarding “how we can affirm the inerrancy of the original text without having to the original textâ€. It was very insightful and helpful reading.
I have a couple of questions, some probably to long for blog setting, and if they are I would humbly ask if you could point me to a book or a link that you think would answer the question(s) the best.
My first question is, do you hold to inerrancy and if so, how do you define it, and what do you use to qualify that term?
Secondly (which may be the longer one), can you point me to something that describes how the formation of the cannon took place (i.e. the collection, translation, and organization [which books should be in/out] of our current Bible)? Because these are my thoughts after reading your paper:
“Ok I understand that the manuscripts warrant strong evidence for the authenticity for our current translations and I agree with your three points that diffuse the objection, but (if I am understanding you correctly) our current modern translations have been formed by literally thousands of different manuscripts and fragments, each with variants or discrepancies right?â€
So the question in my mind is this:
“How do we (and by we I mean the scholars who organized and translate our Bibles) know which “pieces†of those fragments and manuscripts should make it through to the Bible, in light of many of the issues that you raised where different fragments and manuscripts seem to clash together with one another. Does the older fragment or manuscript take priority, or what methology is used for determining the ultimate form and wording of Scripture?â€
Thank you for the wonderful ministry you do, you are truly a blessing.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Like or Dislike:
0
***From Vance:
So the question in my mind is this:
“How do we (and by we I mean the scholars who organized and translate our Bibles) know which “pieces†of those fragments and manuscripts should make it through to the Bible, in light of many of the issues that you raised where different fragments and manuscripts seem to clash together with one another. Does the older fragment or manuscript take priority, or what methology is used for determining the ultimate form and wording of Scripture?â€
REPLY:
I agree. That is the pertinent question in my mind as well. I would only add, “what is the criteria that determines ANY text (including those already in the Bible) is fit to be called ‘inspired?’â€
Like or Dislike:
1
Just clearing up that it was Josh’s very interesting question that Felicity was quoting, not mine.
But, since I have a window open, I might as well add that I am concerned with the bits and pieces from a more organic and scholarly point of view, but not so much from a “Holy Scripture” point of view. Since my view of inerrancy is not as strict as some others’, and I view what was selected by the Church community as a “collection of the texts which contain the message” rather than the particular words used in every case, I can not get theologically wound up over it. I believe that God inspired the writings of PERFECT concepts using very imperfect men, so that the exact method of presentation, the exact words that were used, were human. This is why God directed the use of four of the Gospels, and letters with overlapping themes. The message is inerrant, the concepts and teaching and theology are Divine, but I think we get into trouble when we determine doctrine on the commas, so to speak. I think the writers of the NT were struggling at times to explain the divine revelation they were receiving in human language, and that is not entirely possible. To understand the ways of God in human language, we must realize that the language will be imprecise and incomplete allow the Spirit to guide us from there. Thus, we might find contradictions and difficult language in the various texts if we are looking for absolute perfection in imperfect language.
HOWEVER, the addition of an entire new text is another issue. If, as Felicity points out, this questionable text was present in at least some of the texts BEFORE the fourth century when God was directing humans in the collection of the texts He had chosen, then I have less theological concern over whether they were in the text as originally written. Again, if we accept that God directed these men in the choice of WHICH texts generally, then we must accept the form of the texts they chose. On the other hand, I think that an historical analysis of what WAS in the text they were particularly considering, regardless of whether it was present in SOME of the texts at the time, is still an important inquiry.
While I don’t hold to any strict magisterium or apostolic authority on this issue, I think that God was directing the leaders of the Church on this issue. And, of course, that is a matter of faith, not reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
***From Josh pretending to be Vance pretending to be Josh:
Just clearing up that it was Josh’s very interesting question that Felicity was quoting, not mine.
REPLY:
Remember: I think I’m always right!
(just kiddin’
Sorry ’bout the mix-up!)
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Dr. Wallace,
You wrote, “I am taking the risk of talking openly about these passages. If you want to see the arguments against their authenticity, simply check out the NET Bible’s notes on them (at bible.org).â€
Okay, let’s take a closer look at the note in the NET Bible at the end of Mk. 16:8. Let’s consider not only what those notes say, but what they do NOT say, and let’s consider how this affects the impression given to the readers. In the interest of brevity I will only hit some highlights.
NET: “The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (× B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (× B).â€
Aleph has a cancel-sheet on which is the text of Mk. 14:54-Lk. 1:56. We don’t have the original pages of Aleph where Mk. 15:54-Lk. 1:1-56 are concerned. Also, Aleph has a blank page after the Gospels — which could be merely a filler-sheet, or which could be the copyist’s way of leaving the option of adding absent passages (such as Mk. 16:9-20) open to the eventual owner of the manuscript. Why doesn’t the NET mention that Aleph has a cancel-sheet here?
B has a prolonged blank space after Mk. 16:8, which is only four lines too short to include the entire text of Mk. 16:9-20 if one begins writing, in the copyist’s normal lettering, at the end of 16:8. A copyist who compressed his lettering and slightly extended the margin of the final column of the page could fit the text of Mk. 16:9-20 into the blank space. Why doesn’t the NET mention that B has a prolonged blank space here? — The ONLY such deliberate blank space (unlike a few blank spaces in the OT-portion which are merely the “seams†where different copyists finished and began their work) in the entire manuscript?
304 is a medieval manuscript which contains the text of Mark interspersed with commentary. When it ends, not only is the text of Mark truncated (at the end of 16:8), but the text of the commentary is truncated as well. (Part of Maurice Robinson’s comments about this are readily available online at R. Waltz’s “Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism.) Plus, the text of 304 is Byzantine. It seems clear to me that this is an accidental quirk-reading. Why doesn’t the NET mention these important features of MS 304?
The citation of Jerome’s mss (Hier-mss) gives readers no indication that Jerome was parroting Eusebius, which he clearly was doing! Jerome includes Mk. 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, and in “Against the Pelagians†II:14, Jerome quoted Mk. 16:14 when mentioning the Freer Logion to his readers, without any indication that they might not find it in their copies. Why doesn’t the NET mention that Jerome’s statements in “Ad Hedybiam†are heavily dependent upon an earlier writing by Eusebius?
NET: “This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point.â€
Error! 083 and 0112 are THE SAME MANUSCRIPT!
Plus, it’s a little misleading to write “al†when by simply adding 274 to the list, we would have an *exhaustive* list of all the Greek MSS known to contain the Short Ending.
NET: “Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending.â€
That is not a valid statement as far as Jerome is concerned. Anyone who reads Jerome’s Ad Hedybiam (Epistle 120) and Eusebius’ Ad Marinus can see that Jerome was leaning very heavily on an earlier source.
NET: “Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15]â€
Error! The Freer Logion is not a “different shorter ending.†Such a description, frankly, makes no sense.
NET: “Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses.â€
Error! No Greek manuscript has a note that says “The early Greek MSS lack these verses.†The most that can be said is that the notes imply that mss earlier than the mss in which the note is written lack the verses. If one actually views the contents of the notes in f-1 and related copies, one will see that they typically say something like, “Some MSS lack these verses but most MSS contain them,†or, “Some MSS lack these copies but the early ones contain them.â€
NET: “while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).â€
I’m curious. What exactly are these “others†which do not have a marginal note about Mk. 16:9-20, but which *do* mark them with asterisks or obeli?
NET: “Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6).â€
Waitasecond: first, you say to see the NET’s notes for details. Then the NET’s notes tell us to read Metzger for details. I’ve read Metzger, and his comments, however well-spun, are not persuasive. Why doesn’t the NET share the other side of the internal evidence — for instance, by providing a link to Dr. Bruce Terry’s analysis of the internal evidence involved?
NET: “All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material†–
(Hmm; “richness of material,†“richness of material;†where have I read something like that before? Oh I remember: p. 126 of Metzger’s Textual Commentary: Mk. 16:9-20 is described as “so rich in interesting material†— where Metzger was adjusting Hort’s description (in Notes, p. 44, column 2), “rich in interesting matter.â€)
Is Mk. 16:9-20 truly full of rich material? Compared to the abrupt ending and the Short Ending, yes. But would anyone with access to Matthew, Luke, and John in the second century consider the Long Ending of Mark to have a “richness of material†considering that it relates Jerusalem-appearances instead of Galilean ones, and considering how it adds to the difficulty of harmonization, and considering its prominent mention of serpent-handling and poison-drinking?
NET: “All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.â€
Error! This reference to “alternative endings†is misleading. There is one and only one alternative ending to vv. 9-20: the Short Ending.
NET: “This first explanation is the most likely due to several factorsâ€
How can relative probability be gauged without exploring the likelihood of the other possibilities? Why doesn’t the NET consider how likely or unlikely it is that the Gospel-account was never finished (by Mark)?
Okay; thus concludes my exploration of the NET notes. Clearly, the NET — which fails to mention the support for the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 from Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Macarius Magnes, De Rebaptismate, Aphrahat, Ambrose, Augustine, Doctrine of Addai, etc — is, as you said, the place to go “If you want to see the arguments against their authenticity.†If you want a thorough, balanced presentation of evidence, though, you need to go somewhere else.
DW: “This blog is not meant to get into the debate over whether these verses are authentic.â€
But it should! By avoiding such a debate, you’re not allowing one of your basic premises to be questioned. It’s like saying, “Where should we sail this ship?†without allowing us to look at the hull to see if it should be sailed at all.
DW: “I will simply ask you to look at the literature on this if you’re interested.â€
Almost all the literature on the subject of Mk. 16:9-20 is either very shallow, or else contains errors and inaccuracies. (In some cases, it’s shallow, AND it contains errors and inaccuracies.)
DW: “the great majority of New Testament scholars, including evangelical scholars, would reject both passages as later additions to the Gospels.â€
And in the great majority of commentaries by evangelical scholars that go into any detail about Mark 16:9-20, there are errors regarding the external evidence.
DW: “In light of the scholarly consensus, how should translators address these passages?â€
The first step, it seems to me, is clear: test the scholarly consensus.
DW: “I think they should be in footnotes rather than not being printed at all.â€
But it looks like you think that 083 and 0112 were two different manuscripts, and that the Freer Logion is a “different shorter ending.â€
DW: “When Westcott and Hort produced their magisterial Greek New Testament in 1881, there was a virulent reaction by the Dean of Chichester, John Burgon. He produced volumes about that the long ending of Mark needing to be retained.â€
Error! John Burgon’s book defending the legitimacy of Mk. 16:9-20 was written in 1874, quite a while BEFORE Westcott & Hort produced their Greek NT. (Hort cites Burgon’s book in “Notes on Select Readings,†p. 30, at the bottom of column 1.)
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
James, I appreciate you comments concerning this passage. Obviously you are aware of the scholarship that goes into accepting Wallace’s proposal and therefore the support that it has among conservatives and liberals, therefore, your presentation and tone is very misleading. There are many good reference works that people can access to further explore this issue, but when Wallace said that this was not a debate, he was conceding to the mass scholarship that agrees with him and trying to draw out the implications. While you may disagree with the presuppositions Wallace has made, I ask you to respect the stated purpose of this particular post and not attempt to draw out a debate.
Thanks much.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear C. Michael Patton,
CMP: “Obviously you are aware of the scholarship that goes into accepting Wallace’s proposal and therefore the support that it has among conservatives and liberalsâ€
There’s an axiom in textual criticism: “Manuscripts should be weighed, not counted.†The same could be said of scholars. Appealing to a “scholarly consensus†does not persuade me for the same reason that appealing to the “majority text†does not persuade Dr. Wallace.
CMP: “your presentation and tone is very misleading.â€
No it’s not. In what sentence have I misled you? The adjective “misleading†applies much more to the NET’s note at Mark 16:9 than it applies to anything I have written here.
CMP: “I ask you to respect the stated purpose of this particular post and not attempt to draw out a debate.â€
You presented the NET’s note. I asked questions about it:
(1) Why doesn’t the NET mention that in Aleph, the text of Mk. 14:54-Lk. 1:56 is on a cancel-sheet?
(2) Why doesn’t the NET mention that B has a prolonged blank space after Mk. 16:8?
(3) Why doesn’t the NET mention that 304 is a Byzantine-text, commentary-with-text-interspersed manuscript, and that not only its text of Mark but also its commentary seems to end abruptly?
(4) Why doesn’t the NET mention that Jerome’s statements in “Ad Hedybiam†are heavily dependent upon an earlier writing by Eusebius?
(5) Why does the NET present 083 and 0112 as if they are two different manuscripts?
(6) Why does the NET describe the Freer Logion as a “different shorter ending�
(7) What are the manuscripts which, according to the NET, do not have a marginal note about Mk. 16:9-20, but which *do* mark the passage with asterisks or obeli?
(8) Why doesn’t the NET mention Dr. Bruce Terry’s analysis of internal evidence?
(9) Why doesn’t the NET mention the patristic evidence in early and important sources such as Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Macarius Magnes, De Rebaptismate, Aphrahat, Ambrose, the Vulgate, and Augustine?
Those questions are invitations for you and Dr. Wallace to either defend the veracity of a source you have cited — a source you have cited to support your position — or else to admit that the source is erroneous at some points and woefully unbalanced and incomplete at other points. Such a discussion about the NET’s note is not a debate about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It’s a logical development in the discussion. The ball is in your court; either defend your source or abandon it.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
The basic issue has to do with this statement you made:
But it should! By avoiding such a debate, you’re not allowing one of your basic premises to be questioned. It’s like saying, “Where should we sail this ship?†without allowing us to look at the hull to see if it should be sailed at all.
The stated purpose of this particular post was NOT to debate the issues but deal with the implications. If you want to respond to a post that is not intended for debate, you need to create a blog and do so. All I am asking is that you respect the authors intentions on the Parchment and Pen blog. This is not a forum. You can certainly disagree, but you cannot draw people into a debate on this blog when their intentions state otherwise.
If we were to allow for such encounters when the purpose is stated otherwise, we would have endless challenges from JWs, KJV Only advocates and even legitimate disagreements such as yours may be. Yet we have to protect the intentions and time of the authors.
I hope you understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear C. Michael Patton:
Dr. Wallace re-stated his question in this way: “My question was whether we should remove such texts to the footnotes in light of the scholarly consensus.†Here’s my answer: No.
But that’s not the end of a discussion; it’s the beginning of one. Obviously that answer would elicit the question, “Why not?â€, to which my answer would be, because the scholarly consensus is poorly grounded. The literature on the subject of Mark 16:9-20 which has contributed to a very large extent to the current scholarly consensus about Mark 16:9-20 is riddled with inaccuracies, embellishments, and falsehoods, and it neglects important evidence. As one shining example of this we need look no further than the NET’s note on the subject. Nobody who could write such a note, or pass off such a note onto trusting readers as if it is a balanced and accurate presentation of the evidence, has a right to a firm opinion about Mark 16:9-20.
Thus ends my reply to Dr. Wallace’s question. If only I had fathomed that that sort of debate-free reply was all that Dr. Wallace had intended to elicit, I could have saved some time, eh.
Oh, one more thing:
DW: “The modern translations, on the other hand, are based on manuscripts that come from as early as the second century. And instead of half a dozen, we now know of almost 6000 Greek manuscripts (let alone tens of thousands in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages). In other words, modern translations are based on about one thousand times as many manuscripts as the KJV, and they predate the Greek manuscripts of the KJV by almost a millennium.â€
For Dr. Wallace’s last sentence there to be true, we would need to have 6,000 manuscripts written before the year 600. We do not have any such thing! You can’t just squish together the date of the oldest witnesses and the quantities of the available Greek mss; that’s not a case of putting the previous statement into other words; it is an entirely different (and fictitious) statement. Why should I, or anyone, trust a “scholarly consensus†if it can be shown that its best and brightest advocates are capable of this sort of ridiculous statement?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
P.S. In a previous post I wrote that Burgon published his defense of Mark 16:9-20 in 1874. The correct date is 1871.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, James, and the assumption was the the scholarly consensus was correct, therefore it is the implications that this blog sought to deal with, not the validity of the scholarly consensus.
Therefore, until the blog turns in such a way, I have to protect the time and intent of the authors, myself, Dan, Paul, and Ruth so that this does not become a place where people feel as if they can come and publicly call people out. There is a place for such things, but this blog is not it (unless such a correspondence is intended by the author).
Like or Dislike:
0
As blog lord, I have to say that comments are meant to be comments, and not dissertations.
Jim Snapp Jr. – Without judging the validity of your comments, I must ask you to limit the length of your posts. As Michael said, this is not the time for another Southeastern Baptist Seminary debate. I was there and heard you have your say with Dr. Wallace, and I saw you hand out floppy disks of your work to everyone. Since you’ve already spoken to him on the matter, as well as given him the info on floppy, there is really no need to rehash it here.
Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying anything about the content of your post, only the length. Well, let me also say that your tone is fairly disrespectful, as well. Your “Error!” statements lack social grace, regardless of their veracity.
So, to you and others, limit the length of your post. If you ask me how long your comments can be, I’ll ban you. Just be good stewards of the author’s and other reader’s time.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Richards,
I’ll be very careful not to ask you how long my comments can be.
Some perspective:
Post #65 was 423 words long (369 if you don’t count the quotations of CMP), and Post #67 was 403 words long (again, less if you don’t count the quotations of CMP and Dr. Wallace). So your objection to the length of my comments is not about those two short posts. It must be about Post #63, which was 1,497 words long (1,121 words, if you don’t count the quotations of Dr. Wallace and the NET).
Consider the length of Dr. Wallace’s comments (not including his initial post, which was 995 words long): Post #25: 674 words. Post #42: 1,359 words. Post #53: 431 words. Post #55: 146 words. Post #57: 2,009 words.
That totals 4,619 words in the comments by Dr. Wallace. Combine that with the 995 words of his initial post, and I faced 5,614 words to engage.
In the course of my 1,497-word post, I engaged not only Dr. Wallace’s comments, but some of Dr. Patton’s as well. If we overlook very short comments made by Dr. Patton, and only consider posts # 15 (267 words), #24 (652 words), and #46 (200 words), then I faced 1,119 more words to engage.
In Post #63, where I wrote 1,121 words, and quoted 376 more words, I attempted to engage the most important aspects of Dr. Wallace’s 5,614 words and Dr. Patton’s 1,119 words. My post, as a response to material by Drs. Wallace and Patton which totals more than four times as many words, is therefore of a reasonable and understandable length, istm (especially in light of Dr. Wallace’s single 2,009-word post).
Richard: “Your “Error!†statements lack social grace, regardless of their veracity.â€
It is better to be slapped with the truth than to be kissed with an error.
Sometimes a certain nuance of alarm is necessary to get people to wake up and notice what you are saying. I could be gentler, but then I might have to sacrifice some brevity.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have often wondered why so many Baptists misquote that you must be “reborn of water and the spirit”. I have not found REBORN in a single copy of any Bible in existance, nor in the Greek versions that I have. Where I first located it was in a second century quote by Augustus of Hippo, and it has since become part of the Catholic cathechism. Even Pope John Paul II in 1986 misquotes it as “Reborn of water and the Holy Spirit” in his Dominum et Vivficantem (On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World). It seems that it was the Catholic church that changed “Born” to “Reborn”, and have never let go of that. Why is that important? Because according to the text, we are all born of water (what is born of the flesh is flesh), but we must now be REBORN of spirit. John the Baptist foretold of a NEW baptism of Fire and the Holy Spririt. Jesus himself breathed toungues of fire onto the Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. Jesus never Baptised anyone with Water, and Paul regrets that he did. The element of Christian Baptism is the Holy Spirit not Water, but the misquote has altered the faith now for over 1900 years.
Like or Dislike:
0
James Snapp, Jr. wrote:
Richard: “Your “Error!†statements lack social grace, regardless of their veracity.â€
It is better to be slapped with the truth than to be kissed with an error.
Sometimes a certain nuance of alarm is necessary to get people to wake up and notice what you are saying. I could be gentler, but then I might have to sacrifice some brevity.
A reading from the tenth chapter of the Gospel according to Mark:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”
“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
Jesus looked at him and slapped him. “ERROR! You love your possessions, not God. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
The man went away fearful of Jesus. Seeing this, his disciples asked, “Why did you shout at him?”
Jesus replied, “Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with an error. Of course, better still to be kissed with the truth, but sometimes a certain nuance of alarm is required.”
One of the twelve said, “That thing you said about how what comes from the mouth arises from the heart…”
Jesus said, “Doesn’t apply to sarcasm. Or whatever I declare retroactively to have been a rhetorical tactic.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Jay H.,
Perhaps I should point out that my statement, “It is better to be slapped with the truth than to be kissed with an error†was meant to serve as an allusion to Proverbs 27:6 – “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.†I did not mean for it to be taken as an admission that I have slapped anyone in the way that you pictured Jesus slapping the rich young ruler. What I meant is that I am not trying to harm, but to improve. For improvement to begin, the need for improvement must be recognized; ergo my candid and specific identification of errors.
Regarding Mark 10:17-22: a case could be made that Jesus’ love for the man is what impelled Him to spur the young ruler to face facts that he had not yet acknowledged. That is similar to what I have attempted to do here.
I appreciate your desire to address my candid tone. I’ll try to be gentler here in the future. Meanwhile, I hope you have a similar desire to address the facts about Mk. 16:9-20, and to ensure that errors about the passage are not perpetuated by you or those you instruct.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Like or Dislike:
0
An early poster on the thread noted that part of Bart Ehrman’s problem was that he ‘was’ a fundamentalist. I would submit that Ehrman is STILL a fundamentalist ranting for certainty but playing on the opposite team and heading in the opposite direction. (This does beg the question that if we assume fundamentalists are ‘backwards’ as the stereotype alleges, does this mean agnostic fundamentalists are not only backwards but going in reverse? But I digress).
Ehrman is indeed a sad case, but it is where dogmatic fundamentalism ultimately leads. Ehrman is simply more honest with his soul about what troubles him than those who would deny the significance of textual variants (like I John 5:7 in particular) or who comfort themselves by restating the original argument with more force.
Yet despite Ehrman’s protestations, he’s still just as fundamentalistic in his approach as he was when he was a fundamentalist. He possesses the same dogmatic certainty about exaggerated claims, has the missionary zeal to attempt to convert people to the cause using the ‘you can’t answer my question’ technique, and bibliology sits on the center of his theological throne in place of Christology.
I don’t say any of what I state to in any way diminish Erhman’s obvious scholarship. The man clearly delves into his work and enjoys it, and his contributions to TC are excellent. But he is not the first nor will he be the last who follows a paradigm of how God ‘had’ to do something and abandons belief when the paradigm is faulty.
Amazing how such a conclusion presupposes the infallibilty of the paradigm and the fallibility of God.
Thanks for the article, Dr. Wallace.
M
Like or Dislike:
0
General Question:
If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two great unicals, why doesn’t someone just translate them into English?
Why simply note variants?
Thanks,
Jack
Like or Dislike:
0
Jack, this is an excellent question. There are a couple of reasons why we don’t just follow these manuscripts slavishly. First, both of them are handwritten products and as such they each contain scribal mistakes. All scholars today are convinced that we should never follow just one MS all the time. And even the great proponents of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Westcott and Hort, occasionally strayed from their combined testimony. Second, in thousands of places they disagree with each other. In such instances, what are we to do? Which MS should we follow? Third, Vaticanus does not contain the whole NT. The last several leaves have been lost, replaced centuries later by a text that deviated significantly from what Vaticanus would almost surely have read.
At bottom, scholars use the best manuscripts, versions, and patristic witnesses to reconstruct the text of the New Testament. But they don’t rely on just one MS or even a group of MSS all the time.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] should not be in the Bible (For more on the woman caught in adultery see Dan Wallace, “My Favorite Passage the is Not in the Bible“). But whether you take these two passages out or leave them in, Christianity is still [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
One advantage of teaching exegetically through a book of the Bible is that these types of issues can be dealt with in the context of the book.
One other question. Does your church have a means of allowing members/attenders to ask questions by email or web site? This has been a means of uncovering questions/issues that our body is facing.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] passage is practically impossible to defend as authentic. Dr. Wallace talks about both passages in this Parchment & Pen article. Wallace has also debated Bart Ehrman in the Greer-Heard Forum. What that debate showed is that the [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] passage is practically impossible to defend as authentic. Dr. Wallace talks about both passages in this Parchment & Pen article (reclaimingthemind.org). Wallace has also debated Bart Ehrman in the Greer-Heard Forum. What that [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] passage is practically impossible to defend as authentic. Dr. Wallace talks about both passages in this Parchment & Pen article. Wallace has also debated Bart Ehrman in the Greer-Heard Forum. What that debate showed is that the [...]
More Comments: