Misquoting Jesus
Page 25
Polycarp, bishop of Symrna, 27, 31–32, 220n. 11
Porphry, 199, 227n. 16
presbyters, 50
Princeton Theological Seminary, 7–9
printing press, invention of, 73, 75–76
Prisca (Priscilla), 180, 185–86
Proposals for Printing (Bentley), 107–8, 223n. 10
Protestant Reformation: sola scriptura doctrine and attacks on, 85, 87, 102–5, 112, 114
Psalms, 20, 24; 22, 172, 173; 69:22, 204
Q (source of Gospels), 24, 220n. 7
readers of Christian writings, 36–41
Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Lipsiensis [Bentley]), 222n. 12
Reply to a Treatise of Free-Thinking, A (Collins), 105
Reuchlin, Johannes, 78, 80
Revelation: Bengel and, 110; copyist mistakes in, 93; Erasmus, missing page of source, 78–79; interpretations of, 216; warning to copyists against changing text of, 54; 1:3, 42, 93; 1:5, 93; 22:18–19, 54
Revised Standard Version, 209
Richards, E. Randolph, 221n. 16
Robinson, James M., 220n. 8
Roman Catholic Church: as Antichrist, 110; apostolic tradition, 104; Richard Simon and refutation of sola scriptura, 102–5; scripture not sufficient authority for faith and Mill’s apparatus, 85
Romans, Letter of Paul to the: alteration in text involving women, 185, 226n. 5; copyist errors in, 91, 93; right standing with God comes from faith not works, 33; scribe identified, 221n. 15; women mentioned in, 180; 3:21–22, 189; 5:1, 93; 10:3–4, 189; 12:11, 91; 16:7, 185, 226n. 5; 16:22, 221n. 15
Rome and Roman Empire: Christian church in, 50; literacy in, 37; pagan religion in, 297; persecutions of Christians, 26, 196–98, 227n. 13
Rufinus, 54
salvation, doctrine of, 166–67, 171, 189
Sanders, James, 219n. 2
Scheide Codex, 88
scribes. See copyists
scriptoria, 73, 222n. 2
scriptuo continua, 48, 90, 221n. 5
Scripture: as authority for faith (Protestant Reformation and sola scriptura), 85, 87, 102–5; beginnings of Christian canon, 29–32; formation of Christian canon, 29–36; Gospels as authoritative, 32; Jesus’s teachings as, 31; John Mill’s apparatus and doubts on authority of, 85–88; as Old Testament, 30, 32; Richard Simon and attack on sola scriptura, 102–5. See also New Testament; specific books
Second Treatise of the Great Seth, 220n. 8
Secretary in the Letters of Paul, The (Richards), 221n. 16
Semler, J., 116
Seneca, 46–47, 221n. 2
Seneca: Moral Essays (Basore, ed.), 221n. 2
separationists, 170–73. See also Gnostics
Septuagint, 24, 119
Sermon on the Mount, 30
Shepherd, The (Hermas), 25, 47–51; 1:1, 50; 5:4, 48; 8:3, 49
Siker, Jeff, 219 n. 1
Simon, Richard, 102–5, 111, 223nn. 2–6
“Sinner in the Hands of an Angry Jesus, A” (Ehrman), 225nn. 5, 8
Smalley, Beryl, 223n. 1
Socinianism, 115
Stephen, martyrdom of, 27, 191
Stephanus (Robert Estienne), 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 107
Story, Cullen, 8–9
Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, The (Smalley), 223
Stunica (Diego Lopez de Zuñiga), 76, 77, 81
Syria: Syriac language, 74; Syrian text, 124
Tertullian, 89, 163, 164, 167, 168, 190, 200
“Text-critical, Exegetical, and Sociocultural Factors” (Epp), 226n. 5
Text of the New Testament, The: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Metzger and Ehrman), 221nn. 5, 14, 222nn. 4, 6, 9, 223nn. 16, 18, 224nn. 1, 20
“Text and Tradition” (Ehrman), 225n. 4
Textual Commentary (Metzger), 223n. 17
textual criticism, 5, 14–15; accidental changes in manuscripts, kinds of, 90–94, 223n. 16; alteration in texts, involving Jews, 186–95; alterations to text involving women, 183–86, 226nn. 4–6; antiadoptionistic alterations to the text, 157–62; antidocetic changes to the text, 164–70; antiseparationist changes to the text, 171–75; apologetic alterations to scripture, 200–205, 227n. 15; Bengel’s criteria of Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua (the most difficult reading is preferable to the easier one), 111, 115, 131–32, 224n. 16, 225n. 3; Bengel’s grouping of witnesses, 111–12, 115, 123; divinity of Christ, determining original texts and, 157–75; earliest form of text, establishing, 127–32; example of Gospel of Luke and an imperturbable Jesus, 139–44, 225nn. 10, 11; example of Gospel of Mark and an angry Jesus, 133–39, 225nn. 7, 8, 9; example Gospel of Mark, last twelve verses as not original, 65–68, 80, 82, 97–98, 102; example of original text of Galatians, 58–60; example of original text of Gospel of John, 60–62; example of textual conflict in Hebrews, “by the grace of God” or “apart from God,” 144–49, 171–72, 225n. 12; example of “woman taken in adultery” story, 63–65, 80, 82, 97–98, 102; external evidence considered, 128–31; families of witnesses, grouping, 124–25, 130–31; Greek manuscripts, four types of, 89; Greek manuscripts, variations in, John Mill and, 83–88; importance of knowing original text, 69, 208–18; intentional changes in manuscripts, kinds of, 94–98, 157–75; internal evidence considered (intrinsic principles and transciptional probability), 131–32, 140, 147; methodology, development of, 105–25; new discoveries of manuscripts, 117–21, 125, 224nn. 24, 31; principles for interpreting types of alterations in text, 63, 128–32, 224n. 1; problems in knowing the “original text,” 57–58, 61–62; as rational eclecticists, 129; scholars, notable, searching for origins, 101–25; search for oldest New Testament, 62–63; task of textual critic, 62–63, 69; theologically motivated alterations of the text, 151–75; variations in Greek manuscripts, known today, 88, 89–90; Westcott and Hort, critical principles of, 121–25, 130–31, 224n. 30; Wettstein’s system of reference, 115
Textus Receptus (T.R.), 107, 222n. 8; as editio princeps, 79; Erasmus and, 78; flaws of, 79, 80, 117; Johann Bengel’s edition, 112; Johann Wettstein’s edition, 115; John Mill’s apparatus and, 84; as source for King James version, 79, 82, 83; sources, 78–79, 116; naming, 82–83
Thessalonians, First Letter of Paul to the: 1:9–10, 21; 2:14, 196; 2:14–15, 188; 5:26–27, 22; 5:27, 42
Timothy, First Letter of Paul to, 34; author of, 31, 181–82, 219–20n. 5; doctrine of divinity of Christ passage and copyist error, 113–15, 157–58; public reading of, 32, 51; women’s role in, 182, 183; 2:11–15, 182; 3:16, 113–15, 157–58, 161; 4:13, 32, 51; 5:18, 31
Timothy, Second Letter of Paul to, 34
Tischendorf, Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von, 117–21, 224nn. 21, 22, 23, 25
“Tischendorf” (Gregory), 224n. 25
Titus, Letter of Paul to, 34, 219–20n. 5
To the Laodiceans, 220n. 6
Torjesen, Karen J., 226n. 1
Tregelles, Samuel P., 222n. 7
Trinity, doctrine of, 81–82, 102, 113
True Word, The (Celsus), 40
Valentinians, 35
Vatican, Greek manuscripts in, 77, 124
Walton, Brian, 83, 84
Westcott, Brooke Foss, 121–25, 130–31, 224n. 30
Western text, 124–25, 131, 226n. 6
Wettstein, J.(ohann) J., 112–16, 224nn. 17–18; passage in Timothy and doctrine of divinity of Christ, 113–15, 157–58
Wheaton College, 6–7
When Were Our Gospels Written? (Tischendorf ), 224n. 21
When Women Were Priests (Torjesen), 226n. 1
Whitby, Daniel, 85–86, 87, 222nn. 10, 11, 12
Wilken, Robert, 227n. 13
Witherington, Ben, 226n. 6
women: alterations in text involving, 183–86, 226nn. 4, 5, 6; Paul’s recognition of specific (Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Julia, Junia), 180, 185–86; role in early church, 178–82, 226n. 1
Women and Christian Origins (Kraemer and D’Angelo), 226n. 1
Ximenes de Cisneros, 76, 77, 222n. 7
> Acknowledgments
I owe a debt of gratitude to four keen and careful scholars who have read my manuscript and suggested (occasionally urged and pleaded for) changes: Kim Haines-Eitzen of Cornell University; Michael W. Holmes of Bethel College in Minnesota; Jeffrey Siker of Loyola Mary-mount University; and my wife, Sarah Beckwith, a medieval scholar at Duke University. The scholarly world would be a happier place if all authors had readers such as these.
Thanks are also due to the editors at Harper San Francisco: John Loudon, for encouraging the project and signing it up; Mickey Maudlin, for bringing it home to completion; and above all Roger Freet, for a careful reading of the text and helpful comments.
Translations of biblical texts, unless otherwise indicated, are my own.
I have dedicated this book to my mentor and “Doctor-Father,” Bruce M. Metzger, who taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work.
About the Author
BART D. EHRMAN chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. A leading authority on the early church and the life of Jesus, he has been featured in Time magazine and NBC News. He is the author of twenty books and lives in Durham, North Carolina.
Visit www.AuthorTracker.com for exclusive information on your favorite HarperCollins authors.
Notes
Introduction
1. My friend Jeff Siker says that reading the New Testament in Greek is like seeing it in color, whereas reading it in translation is like seeing it in black and white: one gets the point but misses a lot of the nuances.
2. The book that comes closest is David C. Parker’s The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: The Univ. Press, 1997).
Chapter 1
1. Scholars today use the “common era” (abbreviated C.E.) for the older designation anno Domini (= A.D., or “in the year of the Lord”), since the former is more inclusive of all faiths.
2. For a sketch that deals with the formation of the Jewish canon of scripture, see James Sanders’s “Canon, Hebrew Bible” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:838–52.
3. By calling Jesus a rabbi I do not mean to say that he had some kind of official standing within Judaism but simply that he was a Jewish teacher. He was, of course, not only a teacher; he can perhaps best be understood as a “prophet.” For further discussion, see Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).
4. For this abbreviation, see n. 1 above.
5. These would include the three “Deutero-Pauline” letters of Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians and, especially, the three “pastoral” letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. For scholars’ reasons for doubting that these letters were from Paul himself, see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004), chap. 23.
6. At a later time, there were several forged letters claiming to be the letter to the Laodiceans. We still have one of them, which is usually included in the so-called New Testament Apocrypha. It is little more than a pastiche of Pauline phrases and clauses, patched together to look like one of Paul’s letters. Another letter called To the Laodiceans was evidently forged by the second-century “heretic” Marcion; this one no longer survives.
7. Although Q obviously no longer exists, there are good reasons for thinking that it was a real document—even if we cannot know for sure its complete contents. See Ehrman, The New Testament, chap. 6. The name Q is short for the German word Quelle, which means “source” (that is, the source for much of Matthew’s and Luke’s sayings material).
8. For example, in the tractates known as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, both discovered in 1945 in a cache of “Gnostic” documents near the village of Nag Hammadi in Egypt. For translations, see James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3d ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 362–78.
9. The name Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means “knowledge.” Gnosticism refers to a group of religions from the second century onward that emphasized the importance of receiving secret knowledge for salvation from this evil, material world.
10. For a fuller discussion, see Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), esp. chap. 11. More information about the entire process can be found in Harry Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). For the standard authoritative scholarly account, see Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
11. For a recent translation of the letter of Polycarp, see Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2003), vol. 1.
12. For further information on Marcion and his teachings, see Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 103–8.
13. See especially William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1989).
14. For literacy rates among Jews in antiquity, see Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2001).
15. See the discussion of Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 27–28, and the articles by H. C. Youtie that she cites there.
16. The standard English translation is by Henry Chadwick, Origen’s “Contra Celsum” (Cambridge: The Univ. Press, 1953), which I follow here.
Chapter 2
1. For further discussion, see Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1995), chap. 3.
2. Seneca: Moral Essays, ed. and trans. John W. Basore (Loeb Classical Library; London: Heinemann, 1925), 221.
3. Martial: Epigrams, ed. and trans. Walter C. A. Ker (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968), 1:115.
4. The fullest discussion is in Haines-Eitzen’s Guardians of Letters.
5. I borrow this example from Bruce M. Metzger. See Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005), 22–23.
6. This is stated in the famous Muratorian Canon, the earliest list of the books accepted as “canonical” by its anonymous author. See Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 240–43.
7. This is one of the key conclusions of Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters.
8. By professional I mean scribes who were specially trained and/or paid to copy texts as part of their vocation. At a later period, monks in monasteries were typically trained, but not paid; I would include them among the ranks of professional scribes.
9. Commentary on Matthew 15.14, as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78–79.
10. Against Celsus 2.27.
11. See Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).
12. Origen, On First Principles, Preface by Rufinus; as quoted in Gamble, Books and Readers, 124.
13. See n. 8 above.
14. For other notes added to manuscripts by tired or bored scribes, see the examples cited in Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, chap. 1, sect. iii.
15. On only one occasion does one of Paul’s secretarial scribes identify himself; this is a man named Tertius, to whom Paul dictated his letter to the Romans. See Rom. 16:22.
16. See, especially, E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991).
17. Even the New Testamen
t indicates that the Gospel writers had “sources” for their accounts. In Luke 1:1–4, for example, the author states that “many” predecessors had written an account of the things Jesus said and did, and that after reading them and consulting with “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,” he decided to produce his own account, one which he says is, in contrast to the others, “accurate.” In other words, Luke had both written and oral sources for the events he narrates—he was not himself an observer of Jesus’s earthly life. The same was probably true of the other Gospel writers as well. On John’s sources, see Ehrman, The New Testament, 164–67.
18. Later we will see how some manuscripts can be established as “better” than others.
19. In fact, there were different endings added by different scribes—not just the final twelve verses familiar to readers of the English Bible. For an account of all the endings, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (New York: United Bible Society, 1994), 102–6.
20. See Ehrman, The New Testament, chap. 5, esp. 79–80.
Chapter 3
1. For my understanding of the term professional scribe, see n. 8 in chapter 2.
2. For an argument that there is no evidence of scriptoria in the earlier centuries, see Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, 83–91.
3. Eusebius is widely known today as the father of church history, based on his ten-volume account of the church’s first three hundred years.
4. For an account of these early “versions” (i.e., translations) of the New Testament, see Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, chap. 2, sect. ii.
5. On the Latin versions of the New Testament, including the work of Jerome, see Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, chap. 2, ii.2.
6. For fuller information on this, and on the other printed editions discussed in the following pages, see Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, chap. 3.
7. See, especially, the informative account in Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1854), 3–11.