Image: Craig A. Evans speaks at the HBU Erasmus Conference.
Session II: Craig A.
Evans: Erasmus and the Beginnings of
Textual Fundamentalism.
CE notes that Erasmus used seven mss. to create his NT. His focus initially seems to be on the Latin
and later shifted to the Greek.
The influence of the text of Eramsus: The editions of Stephus and Beza. The second edition of the Elzevirs gave us
the textus receptus. The KJV translators
depended on TR.
CE suggests that with the TR began textual
fundamentalism. It laid a foundation for
a new form of fundamentalism. The idea
of a text with no errors arrives in this period with the standard printed text. He draws a parallel with the quest for the ipsissima verba Jesu. He says we have autographa of ancient works and copies always vary. With printing of identical texts the view
emerged of an error-free original text.
He cites the discovery of new mss. including papyri, the
discovery of new variants, and a harmonizing tendency in the Byzantine texts. Fundamentalists tried to defend the text and were threatened
by a crisis of faith.
CE draws a parallel to differences among the Synoptic
Gospels. Evans assumes Markan
priority. He says that most traditional
Christians are not aware of the fact that the Gospels were edited and that the
sayings of Jesus were edited. Pastors
should teach this to their people, he says.
He surveys Jewish and Greco-Roman views on history and
rhetoric and says they overlapped. He cites the classic study Hellenism in Jewish Palestine by Saul
Lieberman, which argued that Jewish scholarship was heavily indebted to
Hellenism. More recently Jaffe has come
to the same conclusions.
CE says that the discrepancies in the Gospels begin with
Jesus himself. How do we know this? We have the handbooks from antiquity. Young Greeks began by memorizing brief
anecdotes (chreia). As the student progressed he began to assert
these in his argument and to string together several. He learned how to introduce them. He was permitted to edit these and was indeed
required to by necessity. Change in
wording was not prohibited nor was expansion or abbreviation. The focus was on clarity. CE is dismayed that most traditional
Christians are unaware of this.
He says this view was also present in the pre-print culture
up to the time of the TR. A change takes
place with Guttenberg.
We see this comfort with variety in the ancient
historians. He cites various accounts of
the Roman Emperor Otho. CE says the
Gospel writers were not tape recorders but disciples. He cites Matt 13:32 describing scribes bringing
out treasures old and new. CE says Jesus did not expect his disciples simply to
repeat his words verbatim.
He cites Dale Martin who said Bart Ehrman let text study ruin
his faith because he had an inadequate theology of the Bible. CE recommends Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical
Reading of Scripture.
JTR Analysis:
There was more than a little which I found unsettling about
this presentation. CE represents the assumptions and approach of a classic evangelical “restorationist”
approach. There was, for example, no
mention of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. Those who seek stability in the Biblical text
are “textual fundamentalists.”
I also have questions about some of the historical statements. Examples:
He stressed how Jewish scholarship was affected by Hellenism, but does
not tell us how it was also different.
If ancient Jews, like ancient Greeks, were as comfortable with
differences in texts, variants, etc., as CE suggests, and did not expect
precision in transmission why were the Masoretes so meticulous in their care
for the OT text?
In the discussion period I raised a related question about
the early Christians. If they were so
comfortable with diversity in the NT text and in supposed differences in the
Synoptic accounts of Jesus due to the chreia
pedagogy, why was there such an early effort to harmonize the Gospel accounts
(see, e.g., Tatian’s Diatessaron)? As regards the Church Fathers, what about
Augustine’s efforts to harmonize the Gospels?
And in later church history, why did Calvin harmonize the Pentateuch in
his OT commentaries and the Synoptic Gospels in his NT commentaries? Can it be that desire for harmony, agreement,
and uniformity existed prior to the printing press (and the TR)?
I also asked about another seeming logical
inconsistency. On one hand, CE says
there is a harmonizing tendency in the textual tradition. On the other hand, he then tells us that the
ancients were comfortable with differences and variants among texts! If they were so comfortable with these
variants, why did they supposedly harmonize them?
One valuable thing I gained from this lecture: The
realization of parallel issues regarding modern text criticism and modern
“Synoptic Problem” criticism.
I also could not help thinking that what Protestant liberals
suggested in the nineteenth century, modern evangelicals have thoroughly
embraced in the twenty-first century (e.g., Markan priority, Q, rational
eclecticism, etc.).
Friday AM Breakout
Sessions
Gregory Barnhill and
Natalie R. Webb, “Tolle Lege: Reader’s Aids and Nomina Sacra in Early Christian Mss.”
First half: Readers’
aids developed in Christian texts as they were read.
Presenters say there was a shift in 2-3 century with emergence of the
office of lector. Some have suggested
that the letter carrier was the reader. Reading aloud was an act of interpretation
that needed to be done correctly.
They showed images of Codex B with paragraph division lines
with raised dot and over-lining. There
are a variety of dots in the text, which they interpret as reading notes: raised dots (end of complete thought; major pause);
middle dot (take a breath); lower dot (shorter break).
Hurtado and others have suggested early origins for these
reading helps.
Second half: Nomina sacra. Why these 15 words? Unknown.
They focused on Israel as nomina
sacra. Was it one way Christians staked their claim on this term? They note that the Church Fathers’ use of
Israel as a term in Barnabas, Justin Martyr (church as the true Israel),
Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.
This paper shows shift of interpretative traditions in text.
Timothy Bartel, When
Virgil met St. Simeon: Luke’s Canticle in
Juvenicus.
Juvencus used Virgil’s hexameter verse style to paraphrase
the Nunc Dimitis in Luke 2.
Stanley Helton, Origen
and the Endings of Mark’s Gospel.
Metzger said Origen did not know the end of Mark’s
Gospel. But it has been pointed out that
Origen also shows no evidence of knowing Mark 2 or 5 or even 16:1-8 at all. Rather we have to learn about Origen’s
approach to texts generally.
In Origen’s neglect of Mark generally, we see the church’s
preference for Matthew over Mark.
Thompson showed Origen’s Mark was closest to Codex L (019), a
ms. Similar to Vaticanus. Helton suggests
Origen would have known a tradition that Mark ended at 16:8. See also Eusebius’ citation on the ending of
Mark that most trace to Origen.
If you include Origen’s early work, his text of NT is closer
to L. In later years he shifted more to
the so-called Caesarean text (so like Theta, 565, 700).
We know Irenaeus used the ending of Mark, and it is likely Origen
would have read it.
Helton’s conclusion: Origen
would have known Mark ending at 16:8; the shorter ending, and the longer
ending.
