Saturday, September 07, 2019

Is Martha an Interpolation into John’s Gospel – A Note from the Editor

90
Bildresultat för editor's notesIn a three-part guestpost “Is Martha an Interpolation into John’s Gospel,” Elizabeth Schrader has shared her research and in the recent week there has been a lively discussion with more than fifty comments (Peter Head’s magic threshold) added together. As the editor who invited Schrader to post, I want to thank her for sharing and for interacting with those who commented. The debate will likely continue.

Finally, I also promised to offer my own thoughts. I may make some readers disappointed, but I first have to admit that I have neither studied the textual problems in John 11, nor Schrader’s published work, in any great detail, and therefore I can only offer my preliminary thoughts here.

As I said in the introduction of the first blogpost, I think Schrader’s findings – the mere textual data – are significant. Some commenters have suggested that they are all random scribal errors. I actually have the feeling that it is a mix. Some are random errors, others are different types of general tendencies, e.g., to elevate the man Lazarus, or to downplay Martha, or possibly redaction by a scribe like in the case of P66 (I need to look more into that). This is all interesting and worth the research.

On the other hand, I think it is extremely problematic to harvest the textual tradition and try to find one grand thesis that explains all the textual changes, i.e., I disagree with Schrader’s overall explanation of the data – that Martha was interpolated in the story in the second century – and this would be an interpolation of a very different kind than the ending of Mark or the pericope adulterae (which I, along with most scholars, regard as the two major interpolations in the New Testament).

From a methodological standpoint, let me cite Ulrich Schmid’s excellent article on “Scribes and Variants – Sociology and Typology” from a passage where he critiques Bart Ehrman (on orthodox corruption):
The problems with quantifying Ehrman’s evidence are multiplied by the fact that his search is not confined to one manuscript only or even to a limited number of consistently cited and checked witnesses. Rather, he harvest the entire textual tradition as available to him through modern critical apparatuses. hence his sample is a mixed bag, comprising readings shared by any number of witnesses (including potential singular readings). Individual witnesses therefore appear on isolated occasions when they serve to make a point (e.g. minuscule 2766 at Luke 8:28 with the omission of one word). How can such an apparently singular reading from a late witness that, as far as I can see, is only invoked at one place in Ehrman’s study, be properly assessed, quantified and weighed? (“Scribes and Variants,” p. 5)
The CBGM, which Schrader refers to, can be really useful to distinguish between independent scribal changes that happened several times in the textual transmission as opposed to genealogical, inherited readings (that may even derive from the earliest phase of textual transmission and could possibly be the result of early Christological controversies). I have written several articles on this topic, and I think my article on Mark 1:1 (which is available here) may be useful – this concerns the words “son of God” (ΥΥ ΘΥ), and whether they reflect an early interpolation that spread to most of the tradition, or whether they represent an accidental omission that happened several times in the tradition. One important point in this article is to demonstrate that the later minuscules that omit the words (some of which have been corrected) are not genealogically related to Codex Sinaiticus (the most important witness to the shorter reading), but their closest relatives all include the words.

I will now take a look only at the first variation-unit in 11:1a according to Schrader’s spreadsheet (which she has kindly shared with me). The experiment below can be repeated throughout the chapter. In 11:1a, P66 has a correction μαριας και μαριας in P66* corrected to μαριας και μαρθας. Codex A (02) also has a correction, μαριας in 02* corrected to μαριας και μαρθας. The same correction is made in minuscule 1230. Then, minuscule 157 has μαριας (omits και μαρθας) which was never corrected. In the Old Latin tradition, VL9A also has omitted Martha (and has his sister).

In her HTR article, Schrader referred to these manuscripts (except 1230 which has been added since), and she says concerning the reading in John 11:1a: “It is striking that four important witnesses (P66, A, 157, and VL 9A) do not include Martha’s name in their original text of 11:1. These readings reflect several traditional textual families: Alexandrian (P66), Byzantine (A), Caesarean (157), and Western (VL 9A)” (p. 364).

For me, the fact that these manuscripts, in such a thin attestation, are of such mixed character is not a sign that this particular reading is widespread and goes back to some ancient textform (without Martha). On the contrary, it suggests that what we have is a scribal error which could easily happen in distant witnesses (and it is not exactly the same error that happened either). What could likely have been in the exemplar of the Byzantine manuscripts? To get an idea I just turned to Bruce Morrill’s Birmingham dissertation, “A Complete Collation and Analysis of All Greek Manuscripts of John 18” (available here).

157 is a Byzantine manuscript which agrees with the Majority text 96.2% in Morrill’s test passages in John. His table indicates that the three closest manuscripts are: 443 (97% agreement, i.e., 384/395 test passages, including 8/8 non-Majority passages), 159 (97% agreement including 8/8 non-Majority passages) and 2623 (97% including 8/9 non-Majority passages).

The close relatives 159, 443 and 2623 all read μαριας και μαρθας.

So, what likely happened in 157? The exemplar had μαριας και μαρθας (the typical Byzantine text) and the scribe accidentally omitted και μαρθας. In this case, the scribe created a nonsensical text, εκ της κωμης μαριας της αδελφης αυτης.

1230 is a Byzantine manuscript that agrees with the Majority text 97.7% (and it has no close relatives in Morril’’s tables). It has the same omission resulting in the same nonsense, εκ της κωμης μαριας της αδελφης αυτης. The nonsense reading was corrected in the left margin in this manuscript where και μαρθας was added.

Should the reading in 11:1a in these two Byzantine manuscript be used in statistics that can support Schrader’s thesis of an early interpolation? No! In my opinion, they can rather be used as arguments against that same thesis, demonstrating that a scribal error apparently could happen independently in the textual tradition, and this has nothing to do with some early one-sister textform.

What about P66, Codex Alexandrinus and VL9A? Are they closely related? – No. Further, the original reading in P66 is μαριας και μαριας, i.e., it is nonsensical.

In conclusion, I object strongly to add this (and similar examples) to a total statistics that is meant to tell us how many percentages of manuscripts that have problems around Martha and Mary, and in extension to corroborate one single explanation for the total variation. This also means that I must object to Schrader’s appeal to the CBGM and the way she proposes how editors should make use of it. The method has been designed to identify genealogical connections in attestations as well as incoherent attestations like in the example above (11:1a) where I have only used data from Morrill’s analysis (based on about 400 test passages), whereas the database of John will have thousands and thousands of variation-units.

On the other hand, I am more interested in looking at a particular scribe, especially the scribe of P66, where some type of redaction may be at work. Here we are on safer ground from a methodological standpoint. Schrader thinks there was a different Vorlage with a different form of John 11. I am still sceptical. Was that hypothetical Vorlage used only here to correct the text or elsewhere in John? More research is necessary.

Again, I have to apologize to Schrader, that I have not had the time to go deeper into these issues, but I keep following her research at a distance. However, at this point I am not at all convinced of the overall explanation, a second-century interpolation of Martha, a thesis which for natural reasons is more attractive for many non-specialists.

90 comments

  1. So long as Marian devotion (whether to the Virgin Mary or the Magdalen) seems not to be a factor when Roman Catholic scholars get involved in NT textual criticism (e.g. Raymond E. Brown), this perhaps should not be a disqualifying factor, unless it is the primary driving force for certain textual decisions. Let her readers judge on these and other grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 7:19 am


    I have deleted a number of comments and questions about Schrader's personal faith. Similar to what Maurice Robinson said, your faith, whether evangelical, catholic or other, should not be a disqualifying factor. Now, let's continue with text-critical matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasserman says "I have deleted a number of comments and questions about Schrader's personal faith. Similar to what Maurice Robinson said, your faith, whether evangelical, catholic or other, should not be a disqualifying factor. Now, let's continue with text-critical matters."

      You forgot two key words Sherlock, "perhaps" & "unless", kind of important wouldn't you say? Just like all the comments you've been deleting.

      Delete
  3. I am not convinced by the proposal. Here's an additional reason:
    on HTR page 390, "By the simple addition of Martha, the reader of the Lazarus story is instead subtly urged to identify Mary of Bethany with the woman who sat at Jesus's feet in Luke 10." But on the next page (391) "I believe there is a strong possibility that this change [the proposed addition of Martha] was made in order to hamper the text's subtle identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene...." As with citing Origen on both sides (Mary and Martha), I do not see how one can have it both ways without special pleading.
    On the other hand, I did not reject the proposal because its author is a woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, Mr. Goranson ;) I apologize that I haven't had time to reply to your earlier point about Origen; the semester is very busy and these will likely be my last comments for a while. It's true that one manuscript of the "Commentary on John" has Mary serving the supper at John 12:2. However every copy also contains a reference to the "delay" caused by Martha's objection to Jesus' command (John 11:39), and Origen's subsequent "condemnation of Martha" (see book 28, 14-22). There is more than one way to read this, but it could be read as Origen's awareness that Martha has been interpolated. I don't think we can argue that Origen is unaware of Martha in John's Gospel, though his copy may have said that Mary served at John 12:2.

      That said, I'm not sure what you mean by "having it both ways." In the HTR article I make the case that there are deliberate textual parallels between John 11 and John 20, suggesting that the author wished to associate Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene. Hence my comment on page 391. But the addition of Martha would instead urge the reader to associate Mary of Bethany with Martha's sister Mary from Luke 10. Hence my comment on page 390. I see no contradiction in my point; hope that clears things up.

      Delete
  4. Many thanks to Dr. Wasserman and Dr. Robinson for being such gentlemen! Now, on to the matter at hand.

    Dr. Wasserman, I truly appreciate you taking the time to engage with my argument here. I admit that would have liked to see a response to my eight listed phenomena in blogpost #2, but I realize you have many other tasks to attend to! That said, after reading your argument, I still think it may be useful for people to use CBGM to look at Mary/Martha problems in witnesses *overall*, precisely because I am not suggesting an interpolation of Martha into individual verses like John 11:1. I am suggesting an interpolation of Martha into the entire chapter! Thus the entire chapter must be examined to see if anything fruitful turns up.

    Another very clear example (in addition to the one I give in blogpost #3) can be found in Family 13, a group with which you are quite familiar. I believe that every manuscript of this group has Mary listed first in John 11:5, except for 213 and 1689. But interestingly, we get μαρθαν instead of μαριαν in 213 at John 11:45, and we also get a nonsensical and uncorrected μαρια in 1689 at John 11:20. Moreover, the page containing John 11:21b-11:46 has apparently been cut out in minuscule 543! (the minuscule also seems to be missing chapter 3 of John, but the rest of the Gospel is there).

    My point is that if we only look at John 11:5 in the CBGM, and ignore John 11:20 and 11:45, we would miss some important genealogical info in f13 about overall confusion on the Martha and Mary's names. Perhaps you disagree, but I think it is completely fair to suggest that there may be a connection between the name switch in 213 at John 11:45, the name switch in 1689 at John 11:20, and the name switch in the rest of the f13 minuscules at John 11:5. (And that missing page at John 11:21b in 543 is sketchy.)

    I apologize to everyone that I can't go into more detail due to the semester gaining speed. However I do appreciate everyone's feedback and I will take it into consideration as I continue to polish my thesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 3:44 pm

      Before I say anything else, let's focus on John 11:1a. Do you agree that the changes in the Byzantine minuscules 157 and 1230, generate transcriptional evidence against rather than for your thesis (and that you cannot use them in your statistics to argue for your one-sister textform)?

      Delete
    2. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 3:52 pm

      And your own example from F13 is likely an even stronger argument against your thesis if you have understood my argument about 157 and 1230 (since Family 13 is a very, very tight group, so that we can distinguish what are transcriptional errors deviating from the family text of the archetype, probably an uncial as Maurice pointed out).

      Delete
    3. I think Prof. Schrader's article in HTR is both unqualifiedly brilliant and painstakingly argued, and I cite it favorably in an article of mine in a collection of essays just about to come out. Her work is open-minded and forward-thinking, and she unabashedly approaches her science with precision and exacting attention to detail in an effort to discover the truth behind certain mss. traditions without yielding to any predetermined academic bias. She has much to be congratulated for, and her interest in getting to the heart -- and truth -- of the matter, as well as her breadth of knowledge, reminds one of the work of Bruce M. Metzger, whom few can compare with today.

      Delete
    4. Tommy Wasserman9/11/2019 8:23 am

      Dear Roy, I think Schrader is not yet Professor, but she might become one in the future. You are certainly correct in that her work is open-minded and forward-thinking. In my opinion, the thesis she has presented in three posts on this blog has some major methodological flaws. Regardless, the mere observations in the manuscripts are certainly very interesting although I do not think they point to a second-century interpolation at all (and I have some experience on working with the textual tradition of the New Testament).

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your good thoughts, Professor (if I may). I think Ms. Schrader has responded quite well to her critics, although,yes, some replies await. My impression is that her evidence does point to a 2nd-century interpolation, but I am unable (or unwilling) to go over the details of her research again to prove her right. I leave that up to her (and you) and will be sure to enjoy the ensuing debate. You write of your experience in NT textual criticism, about which there can be no doubt; we can all agree to that. But in the interest of collegial debate, and of the amicitia among scholars of different stripes, may I raise a question? I wonder aloud, with some trepidation, about the reasoning behind this statement. One's experience, no matter how great, does not preclude the possibility that he (or she) may be flat-out wrong, from time to time, or may even bring untoward biases into his or her research process. Are we to expect that someone with just as much experience, if not more, say a (late) Eldon Jay Epp, or a Bruce Metzger, could not arrive at a conclusion different from yours and still be right? In other words, is not your statement, in truth, rather a kind of "authority" statement that serves as an ad hominem argument in reverse? By stating, "I'm experienced -- she isn't -- therefore she cannot be right; trust my authority," are you not unwittingly attempting to squash the very heart of academic discourse? I am not trying to put you, nor anyone else, on the defensive. I am not. Your expertise and wise judgment are appreciated and manifest to all. I am just laying out some food for thought. There are authorities on both sides of the aisle. Bart Ehrman is certainly an authority "with some experience" in NT textual criticism. Even if we don't always believe his views, we must recognize that the experience he, or others, brings to the table may be just as valid as that of our cherished Evangelical textual criticism, a label that I personally wrestle with,for its very existence suggests a ready-made, or built-in, bias against "non-Evangelical" textual criticism, as if they are incapable of doing honest work, just because they are scientists or scholars who don't hold as high a view towards Scripture as do your ETC bloggers. Could they not also be interested in, or capable of, discovering the truth, in their own academic enquiries? I understand the need for this venue, and appreciate it greatly, but I am merely remarking on the very obvious dividing line stretching blatantly across the field of NT textual criticism. I dare (mis)quote Paul here: "Is Christ divided?" ... "I am of Paul"; "I am Cephas" ... "I am of the Evangelical Textual Critics"; "I am not." Is Truth divided? (Mē genoito! I dare say). I am just wishing and hoping that the exiguous work of such a young and capable scholar as Ms. Schrader is not being set up for a disheartening hatchet-job in the interest of preaching to the faithful, an exercise perhaps disengenuously wrapped in the guise of truth. If we, as scholars, are genuinely interested in the scientific truth of a matter, we won't allow division to stand but will honestly let the merits of any given work stand on its own. In the older days of the great giants of NT textual criticism, upon whose shoulders we all now stand, there seemed a greater willingness and openness to welcome the views of "others". I miss those days.

      Delete
    6. Dear Roy (if I may), I agree with just about everything you say! I also regret that I mentioned my experience. To be honest I was not certain that you were familiar with my work (although I am familiar with yours and have referred to it in my research on amulets). Also, I deeply respect both my colleagues Eldon Epp and Bart Ehrman and have had many conversations with them over the years, recently with Bart at the SNTS in Marburg this summer, at the meeting of the society to which Eldon once nominated me. That being said, I have an opinion in the matter which I have expressed in this blogpost, namely that the thesis of an early interpolation is untenable. On the other hand, I am trying to support Schrader in the best way I can. We have corresponded for years and met in person to discuss her research. She knows that I do not agree with her and I think it is only good to have a sparring partner. I also think that the observations are important but I prefer a different explanation and hope to persuade Schrader. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

      Delete
    7. Nor do I think Metzger would have supported the claims of such a thesis within his text-critical views or approach when dealing with variants.

      Delete
    8. Thank you for this kind reply. I wrote at length in response through my email connection to this blog, but it didn't seem to post. Oh, well. But I also wrote to you in brief on my Academia.edu site, with my email. Have a look, if you can.

      Delete
  5. Family 13 basically represents its single and probably uncial archetype. The variations among individual family members, particularly when following the more standard text, generally are of lesser significance.

    That being said, I also do not favor wholesale deletion of comments, particularly if it at least remains possible that certain presuppositions might drive or influence the thesis being developed. (I would apply the same principle to those of us who hold to inerrancy, by the way).

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem Maurice is that if there is a comment that contain inappropriate remarks about a person’s faith or that only men led by the Spirit should do textual criticism (what nonsense) and one deletes them, all replies connected to them disappear too. In this case, however, your comment remained because you started a new thread so to speak, and your first comment made the valid points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Wasserman, my comment (by no means) should of been deleted. If you could disprove or cast doubt upon it's veracity, then do it! To flippantly state "(what nonsense)" after you have insufficiently presented my position is what's nonsense! My comment was not made with the intent to hurt anyone's feelings and I sincerely apologize if did.--And yet, I would never apologize for the statements themselves. Unless of course you (or someone) could show me where I spoke amiss. Respectfully. -MMR

      Delete
    2. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 5:26 pm

      I know exactly what you wrote concerning who should do what with manuscripts and textual criticism and I will not repeat it here, since it has absolutely nothing to do with science. There are other forums for such discussions.

      Delete
    3. There's no need for you to repeat it Sir, because I will for as long as the Lord tarry's.

      Delete
  7. Tommy,
    It appears that Evangelical should be removed from this blog site, if you not only allow non-evangelicals, which has always been the case, but then choose to remove comments based on Evangelical faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 5:11 pm

      If "comments based on Evangelical faith" means to propose that only Christians or only men should do textual criticism, well, then I will delete the comment. Such comments do not belong on this blog, neither do I regard them as "evangelical" in any positive sense. Do you have any problems with that? In fact, I am sorry that some comments only bring disgrace to the name evangelical.

      Further, I was asked by one commenter at some point in the discussion, I believe he is an evangelical, to remove a comment which referred to him in a dress. Neither such comments belong to this blog. When I removed that comment on his request, a bunch of other replies automatically dispappeared. Such is life on Blogger I am afraid.

      Delete
    2. Tommy,
      Of course comments that disparage or are mean-spirited should not even be posted! Yet, if one, like Elizabeth, acknowledges that extra-Biblical revelation is the basis for her pursuit, then questions about whether those revelations are the motivating factors in her TC decisions seem appropriate.
      Tim

      Delete
    3. Timothy, did Elizabeth ever actually refer to any noncanonical documents as "extrabiblical revelation"?

      If not, then the claim that she "acknowledges that extra-Biblical revelation is the basis for her pursuit" is false.

      Delete
    4. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 8:07 pm

      Good, yes, it is not the question as such, but I actually deleted the first comment which contained a number of citations out of context to make statements about Schrader's motivations which she did not recognize (you may have seen that she responded). As I deleted the main comment all replies were deleted with it (the whole thread).

      Delete
    5. Has anyone suggested that "only men" should do textual criticism? I don't recall seeing comments to that effect (though I have seen other comments suggesting male "misogyny" as a driving factor).

      Delete
    6. I object to this misrepresentation.
      It was Miss Schrader that twisted the citation out of context to refer only to a song rather than her research. It is clearly a motivating factor in her research whether you prefer to ignore it or not. A little honesty please...

      "For Schrader, the impulse to recover the scope and stature of Mary Magdalene came nine years ago, when she was Libbie Schrader, a singer-songwriter in the New York pop scene. A cradle Episcopalian, she had wandered into a church garden in Brooklyn to pray to the Virgin Mary and heard a voice telling her to seek out Mary Magdalene."

      https://twitter.com/libbieschrader/status/1154012043491627014

      Delete
    7. Yes, one commenter suggested that only spirit-filled men should make judgments on readings. Others were apparently allowed to do transcription work and collations in his world.

      Delete
    8. Tommy Wasserman9/08/2019 10:32 pm

      This was not exactly what you said. You included two citations and drew your conclusions about what drives her. Schrader responded and apparently felt misrepresented. I don't want to pursue this discussion further. I hope you can respect that. In case you have something more to say about the text-critical matters, please do.

      Delete
    9. Thank you for your kind invitation. My comments on text-critical matters are as follows:

      “We may be influenced and persuaded by the testimony of the church of God to hold a high and reverent regard for the Holy Scriptures.

      Moreover the glory of its contents, the efficacy of its doctrine, the majesty of its style, the agreement among all its parts, the expanse of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full revelation it gives of the only way for human salvation, together with many other incomparable characteristics and its complete perfection - all these arguments provide abundant evidence that it is indeed the Word of God.

      Yet, not withstanding this, our full persuasion and assurance of its infallible truth and divine authority comes from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

      The Old Testament in Hebrew (the national language of the people of God of ancient Israel) and the New Testament in Greek (the common language of that time) were inspired directly by God, and were kept pure throughout the ages by his particular care and providence.”

      - Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

      Delete
    10. Dr. Wasserman, yes I do have a problem with it. My comments were doctrinal in nature and firmly rooted in Scripture. To claim my statements were unscientific is blatantly false. Biblical doctrine and the subsequent Theology which is built upon it is both; Father and King of all Science. The Textual Criticism of the Old & New Testament's is (as it were) the Mother and sitting Queen of all Science. Every Scientific field must submit and bow the knee unto them. If you consider my comments to be a "disgrace to the name evangelical" then I would suggest that you familiarize yourself better with the teachings of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles of our Lord. For it is they which are my source.

      Furthermore, inquiries and questions concerning the worship and offering of prayer unto Mary (and hearing voices while doing so) are also within the scope of the larger Scientific realm. For until relatively recent (as far as the history or man goes), there was no hard line drawn between physics and metaphysics, chemistry and alchemy or science and the occult. The hard lines we draw now are cultural and modern. Even so these topics should be and are to some degree understood as being fringe topics to what we moderns consider pure science. With that said I sincerely apologize if I have upset you or Miss Schrader with my opinions or views in this regard, but I cannot deny what (I believe) the Scriptures clearly teach.

      Delete
    11. Indeed, if you suggest that only spirit-filled men should judge between readings, then you have left the boundaries of science and academia and it is better you take those discussions to a different forum - they are not welcome here.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Tommy Wasserman9/10/2019 7:28 am

      Since this is only an attack on me, I will happily let the comment stay as a telling demonstration of the kind of fundamentalism hostile to academia. You can consider this your final comment.

      Delete
    14. I'm just pleased to hear that Tommy is making some conjectural emendations!

      Delete
    15. And I am even unaware of it.

      Delete
    16. I think it's interesting, MMR, that you still bother to use the honorific "Dr." while being so disrespectful.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    18. How a singer-songwriter from Portland became a Mary Magdalene scholar

      https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2017/08/libbie_schrader_singer_songwriter_theologian.html

      Delete
    19. As a related matter:

      Would Hoskier be considered an "evangelical" textual critic in view of his acceptance of seance-based "spirit writing" producing a "new" textual variant in Revelation? Or in view of his beliefs in Nirvana and reincarnation even while remaining a nominal Episcopalian?

      Such certainly seems to be the case in light of the various TR and KJVO advocates who repeatedly cite him authoritatively .

      And if so...

      Delete
    20. Aw come on, MMR, he's got more than titles - he's also just scored another 50 comment thread!

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    22. Ryan, true! It's good to see that someone has a sense of humor.

      Delete
    23. It's pretty much been thrashed to death already..
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2642977452455905/?comment_id=2668455289908121&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

      Delete
    24. Nitty Gritty9/11/2019 4:27 am

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    25. Apparently, Mr Rose has deleted his ad hominem remark which is good.

      Delete
    26. Not sure which remark was ad hominem but I'm glad your pleased Dr. Wasserman. My wording was too strong I'll admit, but I was undoubtedly provoked. Whether you want to deal with the Scriptural ramifications concerning the custody and care of God's written Word or not matters little as to the immense importance of such conversations...And after one last query I will not press it any further.

      Do you (Dr.Wasserman) consider the Church in better hands if a man or woman such as say, Bart Ehrman (an unbeliever without the Spirit) is at the helm in regards to the laying down and subsequent editing of the Text? Or a man who has been called into the ministry by the very Spirit of God and given say, the office of teacher along side the Spiritual gift of discernment?

      ...In which of these two situations does the body of Christ fair better?

      Delete
    27. Tommy Wasserman9/11/2019 10:39 am

      I think the body of Christ as well as the academia has fared very bad in the past because of fundamentalist Christians who know little or nothing about Greek manuscripts and textual criticism, many of which accept the "Received Text" as reflected in one particular translation, the King James Version. Such an unreflected and even absurd view of Scripture is not beneficial to anyone. I am not saying that you subscribe to this view, but rather I am saying that many people who hold the bible dear and regard themselves as being filled by and led by the Spirit, nevertheless defend an absurd position. How could that happen? Well, perhaps because they were told this by their pastor or some other authority. In reality, however, such authorities are not text-critics who publish peer-reviewed academic articles and books. Instead they spread their propaganda in other ways.

      As for your question about Bart Ehrman, as an academic text-critic it will not do for me to refer to a colleague as "an unbeliever without the Spirit". Such language does not belong in academia (and this is an academic blog). On the contrary, I will have to argue against his case based on *valid text-critical methods and principles* (which I have done – you can download my "Misquoting Manuscript" article from the resource page of this blog).

      Delete
    28. Dr. Wasserman, I wholeheartedly agree with you! Also, I should have stated "all things being equal" in regards to knowledge of the Text in my hypothetical query. With that said I believe there is a need for plain speech when dealing with such important issues and yet I see your hands are somewhat tied because of your position in academia. As it where, I cannot separate God from His Word. Doctrine, in my view should play a vital role in Text Criticism, yet not in the hands of novices. I would therefore make a plea for both, a heavy helping of expertise along with a hearty dose of the Holy Spirit.

      Although I agree when you state "I think the body of Christ as well as the academia has fared very bad in the past because of fundamentalist Christians who know little or nothing about Greek manuscripts and textual criticism"

      I would add that I think the same two bodies have gravely suffered by the hands of men and women who are either heretics and/or reject the Lord of glory altogether. The fact that it does not behoove you to comment on such things is now fully understood. So out of respect I will refrain (as best I can) from addressing you in such matters and/or when you are responsible for the authorship of any respective blog post. Thank you for your candor! -MMR

      Delete
    29. I'd add to what Tommy says, MMR.

      You've posted (and deleted) several times to "defend" the "holy scriptures" .

      This is an academic blog for textual criticism, but if I could veer for a minute into the theology of Christian practice:

      I find, in the bible, only a couple off hand references to the scriptures being "holy" . What I find many, many more of, however, are references to the need for us to be holy - to act holy.

      And it should be no surprise that God would be so much more concerned with people than with a book. After all, the church began without the bible, and it will end without it too. The bible is a temporary tool we get for a time in the middle. People, on the other hand, are God's creation, and each one is of infinite value to him. He is, after all, the shepherd who leaves the 99 to save the one.

      That's why so much of the bible's discussion of your holiness concerns how you treat those other people - those other people which are so valuable and so beloved by God. You cannot be holy while mistreating others. All the holy scripture in the world will be of no use to you if you are not holy in your treatment of others. You may disagree with Libby's doctrine, but orthodox doctrine will be of no help to you if you treat others in a way that Jesus never would.

      I read all of your posts prior to their deletion. Did they meet the standard of Jesus? I'd suggest that if they did, you wouldn't have felt the need to delete them.

      So my question for you would be: which do you think does more damage to the mission of the church: unorthodox doctrine, or unorthodox behaviour? Put another way, which do you think causes Christ more heartache: when one of his children has a wrong idea, or when someone else mistreats those children?

      Delete
    30. Hi Ryan, you wrote; "You've posted (and deleted) several times to "defend" the "holy scriptures."

      Correction, I deleted "one" post, one. The reason I deleted the post is simple. It obviously upset Dr. Wasserman and therefore struck a nerve which was not my truest intention.

      Again Ryan states "This is an academic blog for textual criticism, but if I could veer for a minute into the theology of Christian practice"

      I would be careful here considering that this is the core reason for the blowout. Several posters, including myself were not given this liberty. That said I respect Dr. Wasserman's decision in doing so (although I do disagree).

      You continue "After all, the church began without the bible, and it will end without it too. The bible is a temporary tool we get for a time in the middle."

      Hmmmm, the Church had the whole Old Testament from ground zero last time I checked. "End without it" Hmmm again, I want to comment but it has been made abundantly clear as of late that this is not the forum for Theological discussion so I will let it be.

      Concerning whom was mistreated by who. I'd rather let God be the judge of that as opposed to you, respectfully. Especially considering that you showed up to the party quite late.


      Again you write "I read all of your posts prior to their deletion. Did they meet the standard of Jesus? I'd suggest that if they did, you wouldn't have felt the need to delete them."

      You most assuredly did not read all of my posts prior to their deletion considering this has been going on for a couple days and that "I" didn't see several post left by others even though I was smack-dab in the middle of it. I very much doubt you saw the last lengthy post I left (that was deleted) considering the rapidity with which it was deleted (several minutes).

      Although I would love to engage your last questions, it would only drag this whole thing through the mud again and I don't think that is your intention.--But I will say this, your critique is one sided and therefore somewhat biased. I have already and will continue to accept my part in whatever blam is to be cast, so it's in God's hands now. Yet, before I take leave I will remind you that none of your thoughtful remarks would be possible without the Bible in heart and in hand. Therefore take heed to the fact that my less comely word's were in the heat of battle for what I believe to be the true Doctrine and Text. Therefore I must disagree to some extent with your final implications.

      I do want to thank you for lightening the mood and not jumping on the dog pile. It is appreciated as are your soft and careful words, they will not go unheeded.--And as the lovely axiom of Bengel reads "grace begins where the natural means can go no farther"

      Delete
    31. Matthew M. Rose, you wrote: "....Especially considering that you showed up to the party quite late.....You most assuredly did not read all of my posts prior to their deletion considering this has been going on for a couple days...." etc. etc.
      In fact, Ryan (with the same profile) was the *very first commenter* on Ms Schrader's first post, on 8/30/2019 1:47 pm.
      This is just one example of why, some day, perhaps, you may need to to reconsider some things you assert as "most assuredly" so.

      Delete
    32. S. Goranson you state;
      "In fact, Ryan (with the same profile) was the *very first commenter* on Ms Schrader's first post, on 8/30/2019 1:47 pm.
      This is just one example of why, some day, perhaps, you may need to to reconsider some things you assert as "most assuredly" so."

      The incident in question began to brew on 09/07/19. Ryan did not make his presence known until 09/10/19. I apologize if this wasn't clear. I'm speaking of the situation which occurred on this blog post, not the three part series that proceeded. So unless Ryan was tied to his computer these last few days, perhaps you spoke to soon. Now if there's something else more pertinent that I have also asserted as "most assuredly" in which you think I spoke amiss, by all means lay it on me. Otherwise I'm prepared to move on with no hard feelings either way.

      Delete
    33. I--like Ryan--read some of your now-deleted words. I gave one example of your mistakes. Ryan, I think, tried to speak to your conscience. Your bluster seems unhelpful.

      Delete
    34. Thank you, Stephen, you are correct on all points.

      MMR, as Stephen pointed, I have followed this thread quite closely since the start. I did read all your posts (and read them to my wife too!). I read the part where you proclaimed that the holy writ gives no quarter to text criticism, and I read the part where you encouraged Tommy to grow testicles. I doubt he required that encouragement, though if he's anything like me, he probably did get a chuckle when you kicked him out of the order of Melchizedkek.

      Now, you say such words were said "in the heat of battle" . I'll rephrase my last question yet again: what makes you so sure it is battle to which God has called you?

      As Peter discovered in the garden, any one can fight - fighting comes naturally to humans. (Dressing it up in our own rationalizing minds as "God's work" comes even easier). But that was the response chosen by Jesus, was it?

      Delete
    35. *wasn't the response of Jesus - important "not" I missed there!

      Delete
    36. Are you kidding me? You propose this misrepresentation and strawmam?

      "when you kicked him out of the order of Melchizedkek."

      Is this a joke? I was mimicking a previous remark by Dr. Wasserman "then you have left the boundaries of science and academia" in which I substituted these names for ones which fit my line of argumentation. I claimed to kick him out of nothing!! How is "then you have left" kicking someone out?

      " I read the part where you proclaimed that the holy writ gives no quarter to text criticism"

      What does this even mean. And why are you bringing it up? You have misquoted and misrepresented my position. Meanwhile I could not defend it even if I wanted to because I already gave my word to Dr. Wasserman. Why didn't you jump in while the fire was hot if you have such strong feelings about the situation?

      "I did read all your posts" How you suppose to know this is beyond me. Where you tied to your computer every second of every day for the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th of this very month? Post were immediately deleted, you were nowhere in the conversation. It's over! Dr. Wasserman deleted many posts of mine and many others for indulging in these same topics. If there is some forum where you would like to discuss what I actually said, I'm game. Drop a link, otherwise please refrain from misquoting me and picking an old scab. The post are no longer here for verification and we are not permitted to talk about it.

      In all honesty, if you had read all what I posted you would not be questioning me, for I made everything crystal clear. It simply is going to come down to Biblical interpretation and nothing else. So unless Dr. Wasserman is prepared to give me more slack (which he has already given enough) and allows me to address you properly, you Sir are wasting both our time.

      For what it's worth I wish I could clarify my position, but I cannot here or now. Meanwhile Dr. Gurry has started a wonderful blog page on Luke 15:21, my advice is to focus on that (not that you haven't already).

      Delete
  8. Dr. Wasserman writes;
    "I will not repeat it here, since it has absolutely nothing to do with science."

    What a hypocritical statement. You Sir, are commenting on the fourth and final blog post in which an utterly unscientific thesis has been presented by your orchestration.--And yet have the audacity to make such a statement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I see it, since an invited guest poster is not required to be "evangelical" per se, whatever degree of slack is necessary should be granted in such matters. The same would apply to any non-evangelical textual scholars under such auspices, whether Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or even Mormon critics.

    My particular concern involved whether a presuppositional view might affect or otherwise drive a particular thesis regarding textual establishment. Nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for your insight Tommy and for your patience and grace shown to both Ms. Schrader, who, whatever she believes, deserves our respect (as a scholar and as a woman created in the image of God with unique talents and gifts), and support in her pursuit of truth.
    Thank you Libbie for your thoughtful and considerate engagement with those who were disrespectful towards you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to add the second part of my first sentence above.
      Edit: "Thanks for your insight Tommy and for your patience and grace shown to both Ms. Schrader, who, whatever she believes, deserves our respect (as a scholar and as a woman created in the image of God with unique talents and gifts), and support in her pursuit of truth, and to those commentors who were disrespectful towards Ms. Schrader."

      Delete
  11. I've always wondered about the title of this site (which, BTW, I enjoy enormously). How is "Evangelical Textual Criticism" different from "Textual Criticism"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That exact question has come up here before (but years ago). See this post, along with other older ones that it refers to. Hopefully there are links to the relevant older discussions in there.
      http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-evangelical-textual-criticism.html

      Delete
    2. When it comes to the "Evangelical" part of the title, think in terms of a high view of scripture as the revelation of God. Think less about other ideas often associated with the Evangelical church such as a certain political view, the role of women in Church leadership, escatology, or Calvinism vs Arminianism to name a few. Though I too have my own views on these topics, they do not have much to do about Textual Criticism and we should all leave these at the door, so to speak, when we engage on this forum.

      Delete
    3. What binds us together from such desperate backgrounds is our high view of God's scriptures. If we have a highview of God's word it means that we need to seriously engage with different views and theories that challenge our beliefs or our preconceived notions about the text and canon of the scriptures. I have experienced this in my own faith walk and have wrestled over my own ignorant misconceptions about the bible.

      Delete
    4. I too hold a high view of scripture, but as a cradle Episcopalian I am not a biblical inerrantist. I don't want to get into it too deeply here (since I imagine it will inspire another cascade of irrelevant comments), but for the record I view the changes in John 11 through the lens of Hebrews 4:12-13.

      Delete
    5. No hurry, Ms Schrader, but I hope you eventually find time to reply to the comments of your kind host, Dr. T. W., from Sept. 8, the ones starting "Before I say..." and "And your own..."

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Lee van Cliff9/11/2019 3:24 am

      E.Schrader, if you hold such a high view of Scripture than why do you believe so many things that are contrary to Scripture?

      Delete
    8. I would have thought that the editors of a blog that claims to be evangelical would be pleased that this research has received such a strong negative reaction, given that the conclusions, if accepted, would involve eliminating entire persons from the Gospels and elevating MM to "an apostle to the apostles."

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would like to thank Dr. Wasserman, Miss Schrader and some others for the conversation. It's important for new research to be discussed and evaluated. We as Christians cannot be afraid of being challenged no matter how poor one thinks the research is. If its poor the academic critique by others will show that in time. Please remember, young people are watching and listening and tone is extremely important. Since almost everyone doesn't read or write Greek or Hebrew we rely on you all. It shouldn't be up to Bart Ehram to educate the un-informed Christian and others on these matters.

    Miss Schrader, I must apologize to you for the behaviour of others. I'm not convinced it was strictly based on your research as the underlying tones of some posts seem to suggest (i.e. your gender). Many of us are Egalitarian. If you are searching and have questions about what many Christians believe might I suggest the work of Gordon Fee and Christians for Biblical Equality for other views and textual questions.

    Michael Clark

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Clark. There have been a few developments this week and again I apologize for the limited amount of interaction I can give here on the blog. To answer Tommy's question "Do you agree that the changes in the Byzantine minuscules 157 and 1230, generate transcriptional evidence against rather than for your thesis (and that you cannot use them in your statistics to argue for your one-sister textform)?" My answer is "no", because it turns out that 157 and 1230 are indeed quite closely related. According to the CBGM, 157's closest relatives are 35, 173, 869, **1230**, 1241, 1344, 1797, 2106, 2680, and 2790. This isn't reflected in Bruce Morrill's dissertation, but the CBGM in John (for which I very gratefully thank David Parker and Klaus Wachtel for allowing me to get a sneak peek, and which Tommy wisely recommended that I try to see) has far more comprehensive data. In other words, the CBGM provides evidence contrary to Tommy's suggestion above that the missing Marthas in 157 and 1230 are "incoherent attestations" and "a scribal error [that] apparently could happen independently in the textual tradition." Thus the omission of Martha in 11:1 in these two related manuscripts is less likely to be a simple scribal error.

    I would also like to thank Darrell Post, who generously did nine brand new collations in John 11 and e-mailed them to me. He found that in minuscule 2414, Mary serves the supper in John 12:2. 2414 is not in the CBGM, but according to Bruce Morrill's dissertation, 2414 is related to 63 (also not in the CBGM). I went ahead and looked at other manuscripts in the 63 cluster (according to Morrill), and quickly found two new minuscules where Mary serves: 178 and 989. I will be investigating this cluster further in the coming week. In other words it appears that the manuscripts where Mary serves in John 12:2 are indeed sometimes the result of genealogical connections in attestations (not scribal errors happening independently in the textual tradition). But Tommy is correct that this could reflect a suppression of Martha in John 11 and is not necessarily a remnant of a Martha-less textform. All of the witnesses where Mary serves in 12:2 are late (although there is a single manuscript of Origen's Commentary on John where Mary serves)

    This research is obviously happening in real time, and so I would encourage the interested text critics on this blog to collate more manuscripts, as Mr. Post has done, whose efforts have already borne much fruit! The more information we have, the more we can find out what is actually going on in John 11. Thanks so much everyone for your interest in this research.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very good that you received permission to use the CBGM database, it is much better than Morril’s samle. Let me just emphasize that even if there are apparently connections between the manuscripts the attestation will still be incoherent although it is possible that in 157 and 1230 they derive from a common ancestor. To me it seems this variant arose several times independently in the tradition (although the scribes of 157 and 1230 may have had them in an exemplar).

    More importantly, I am very happy that you will consider my suggestion that Martha may have been suppressed in some strands of the textual transmission. That appeals more to me than the thesis that Martha was interpolated in John in the second century, and now scattered traces pops up here and there in unexpected places in distantly related witnesses (in spite genealogical connections between clusters here and there).

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems to me that to appeal to the the thesis that the "variant arose several times independently in the tradition" veils an attempt to work around the more likely explanation that they all stem from a common Vorlage. If one is unable to dismiss the evidence of 157 and 1230, does it really matter any longer whether the others show an organic or accidental nexus? It's easier to see them all -- or nearly all -- as connected. Occam's razor, again. But we cannot wave Occam's razor if our academics isn't honestly and forthrightly being launched from a position of a pure, unbiased pursuit of the truth. Otherwise, we'll be talking about Procrustean beds and not Mediaeval razors. As scholars we must always ask ourselves whether our own pre-conceived notions of how we wish the evidence to speak might somehow be discoloring how the evidence actually does speak -- that applies to me, to you, to everyone, no matter one's position of faith. This is one of the most intractable problems I see in the discipline. I invoked Bruce M. Metzger earlier, and, yes (in reply to another), I do think he would have been open, even amenable, to Ms. Schrader's thesis. Although of a strong confessional position, Metzger did not let the evidence, e.g., of the Sahidic of Luke 26:9 or of Romans 5:12, dissuade him from questioning, albeit sotto voce,the variableness of the early text of the NT -- this, in his unmatched and magisterial, Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origins, Transmissions, and Limitations (Oxford, 1977), p. 136f. His is a masterful model of how we, today, should be conducting ourselves and our academics, according to my own way of thinking. Scripsi, dixi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roy D. Kotansky writes,

      "As scholars we must always ask ourselves whether our own pre-conceived notions of how we wish the evidence to speak might somehow be discoloring how the evidence actually does speak"

      "But we cannot wave Occam's razor if our academics isn't honestly and forthrightly being launched from a position of a pure, unbiased pursuit of the truth."


      Matthew M. Rose writes,

      "Again Miss Schrader states;"As my data tables note, several manuscripts do indeed say that Mary went to meet Jesus in John 11:20 (983, 1344, and 1689)."

      So on the authority of three late mss. (of little textual value no doubt in such an instance), we are to dismiss the voice of universal antiquity, again? If William of Occham had a razor, you my dear have a sledgehammer. Which (to the dismay of many) you intend to use upon fifty-nine consecutive verses of the fourth Gospel. This is nothing but a proposal to destroy the eleventh chapter of John, as well as the first two verses of the following chapter on nothing but an overzealous whim.

      --And yet "it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing" and so your carefull collection of data is commendable and shows proof of an eager mind along side a thirst for research. Virtues not to be triffled at! The downfall, I regret to say, is an unbridled thrust towards your goal coupled with a magnitude of confirmation bias I have never encountered. This is what your thesis is composed of, a thesis which proposes the need to inact a form of wholesale conjectural emmendation upon more than one chapter of John's Gospel on the most slender of evidence. This is inadmissible to say the least."

      Delete
    2. I will let Ms. Schrader speak for herself, but none of what you write is evidence. You write of a "sledgehammer", but what I read in your words is more about an axe to grind. I would urge you to address the evidence directly, rather than write of an "overzealous whim" and a "proposal to destroy". This does nothing to forward the debate or address the evidence of the case at hand but is just a reaction that mounts to an attack. I do not think Ms. Schrader really aims to attack anyone or anything.

      Delete
    3. Roy D. Kotansky, you state; "none of what you write is evidence."

      Sir, those comments were extracted from a larger (double) posting and their immediate (larger) context in part III of Miss Schrader's guest blog. In which I deal with Schrader's "own" argumentation and evidence. To be fair the quotations taken from your post deal with even less evidence. As did your full post in general in comparison to the source of mine own quotations.

      With this said, I would simply state that those post, along with the several other post I made in parts I & II do indeed deal with the evidence. One can only address the arguments made. Miss. Schrader's thesis is strong with theory, conjecture, implications, reasoning and opinion. I therefore engaged her on her own grounds. Those "last" post were my final comments (all based upon Miss Schrader's own arguments) and they were heavily laced with rhetoric and logic. I'm sorry if you disagree with my tone but having dealt with the said thesis with "kid gloves" for so long, I saw the need to finally take them off.

      I would suggest to read the full posting along with my earlier posts (in the original thread) before one decides whether I present evidence or not.

      Further I would make the plea that every pertinent unit of variation which Miss. Schrader deems vital to her elaborate theory be evaluated individually (and in order) before the whole thesis can be properly discerned. -MMR




      Delete
    4. Dear sir, you clearly seem to be confusing "evidence" with "doctrine" or confusing "evidence" with mere "argumentation". None applies to the evidentiary data that
      Ms. Schrader's article presents. Not a scintilla. Doctrine is important, as is true faith and belief. I have gone through all of the blogs, and for ease of debate I have to side with Prof. Wasserman in his critique of your trying to work textual criticism from the lens of faith. It's important, I understand, to hold a position of faith in respect of the Bible, in toto. I understand this. I do. But Ms. Schrader's HTR article, which I urge everyone to read, despite their level of Greek, does not -- nor should not -- deal with doctrinal issues. You are trying to mix oil with water; they do not blend. But both are real elements and exist, apart. You are not actually presenting arguments at all, but opinion and even innuendo based upon a doctrinal and confessional position. You cannot be faulted for this, until you try to make unfounded suppositions. That amounts to sophistry, casuistry, and even ad hominem arguments. It does not work. You write of Ms. Schrader's "theory, conjecture implications,reasoning,and opinion" as if these were the five deadly sins. With exception of perhaps the last, these are cardinal tenets of scientific enquiry. Gravity is a "theory" that is well-founded in mathematics and physics. Her's is an argument well-founded in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, textual criticism and exegesis. No, sir you are not presenting evidence at all, you are covering over her rigorous attention to linguistic and textual detail with un-reasoned statements, from which I have not seen a counter-argument out of the same tool-set she is using. I have not. It's like trying to read or critique Keats or T. S. Eliot, or Manet or Monet, using logic or philosophy. 2 x 2 = 4, whether you are good at Math or not, but it does little good to say "I hate your Math," or "I hate Algebra,". And you are correct: I am not presenting good "arguments", because I'm not arguing the particulars of her case, only raising important methodological questions. Unless you engage specifically in the textual evidence she presents, there can be nothing more to say.

      Delete
    5. Hi Roy, you state;
      "your trying to work textual criticism from the lens of faith."

      I certainly have not! The Mariolatry question was not brought up until this final "note from the editor post" and it was not brought up by me (nor even known). I had not yet read the article in question.

      Show me in any previous post in parts I, II or III were I focus on or call attention to such things. My focus was on the "singular, sub-singular and rarely attested readings" that Miss Schrader inlisted within her pool of evidence. To which I applied "important methodological questions" etc.. If you had indeed read all of my previous post you could not make the statement; "You are not actually presenting arguments at all, but opinion and even innuendo based upon a doctrinal and confessional position."

      What confessional position is that? This is untrue. I have attempted to tackle everything that was brought to the table within the comments section by Miss Schrader. Meanwhile doing my best not to cover ground already won (in my estimation) by Pastor James Snapp in his most thorough blog posting. I was one of the first to take Miss Schrader to task on the obvious scribal blunders which furnish her data set. So I must insist you are mistaken.


      Roy continues;"You write of Ms. Schrader's "theory, conjecture implications,reasoning,and opinion" as if these were the five deadly sins."

      I certainly did not. How you have coloured my words to mean this is beyond me. I simply state,"Miss. Schrader's thesis is strong with theory, conjecture, implications, reasoning and opinion. I therefore engaged her on her own grounds." Nothing of deadly sins, nothing cloudy,--nothing casting shade.

      Again you write;
      "Unless you engage specifically in the textual evidence she presents, there can be nothing more to say."

      I already have Sir and want nothing more than for her to present them individually on a case by case basis, starting with the most vital. This should have been clear by now.

      Delete
  17. A further word on manuscript evidence. We need to remember that the weight of NT manuscript evidence has little, if nothing, to do with how many manuscripts might support a given reading. Using manuscript count to argue for a reading is a well-known canard that, although still widely used in the academy, is a tool ungainly wielded in scholarly discourse, and should be put down. As is well-known, the further we move away from our oldest text-families towards the monstrously huge evidence of the Byzantine text-type, the more we encounter the massive proliferation of Biblical texts. But this text production can often be likened to the modern, large-scale xeroxing of massive amounts of a common manuscript, so that in the end we have unwieldy amounts of a mass-produced text-tradition that overwhelms the manuscript count of the other texts to produce a false sense of "textual" security or superiority. It's the quality of a ms. reading not its quantity that matters, so that when we do find variant traditions, even in the most slight and late of "paltry" minuscules, we may well be holding in our hands records of genuinely old and valuable readings. Everything must be judged on a case-by-case basis. That is why Dr. Wasserman and Ms. Schrader are being careful to argue the details of individual mss. readings for their potential worth, or lake thereof, and not throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks -- these are the proper tools of the discipline, not sledgehammers, axes, or razors (or spaghetti, for that matter). I understand anyone's frustration in the matter, because it's new and challenging evidence that moves us away from long-standing biases and predictions. But it's evidence that requires a fair, unbiased hearing, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello Mr. Kotansky, you insist; "We need to remember that the weight of NT manuscript evidence has little, if nothing, to do with how many manuscripts might support a given reading."

    I believe your intention was to say "little, if anything" in lieu of the context. Either way I must disagree. If manuscript readings matter little (or mean nothing) than why collate? I would view this position as circular if one already has the predisposition to follow Aleph/B. Obviously the later cursives are not given the same weight as the much older uncial and papyrus mss.. Even so, I must call into question your further statement "It's the quality of a ms. reading not its quantity that matters,".

    In theory yes, but in practice? This comes down to pure taste and in the end gives the individual critic to much slack. Primarily, because it's entirely subjective and therefore pregnant to confirmation bias. Not to say that we need to settle this here and now, especially considering the two opposing School's have not been able to sort this out in the vast time period of the last one-hundred & fifty years,--But I hope you'll agree that it behooves us all to settled it soon!

    --And apologies that your comments were dragged into an Anonymous "cut and paste" posting along side my own.--But as the always clever Dr. Wasserman has stated above, "Such is life on Blogger I am afraid."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I quote you in writing to Ms. Schrader: "I am ashamed to remind you that this is the very word of God you are handling." What!? Anyway, I admit that with the initial "Anonymous" misidentification I may have combined some of your thought with his.

      Delete
    2. Fair enough and no hard feelings whatsoever. As far as the quote above. I will not suffer conjectural emmendations of any form or kind. Let alone when it is proposed that a section of 59 consecutive verses of the Gospel of John must be reworked (without underlying Greek support) to simply better suit someone's personal taste.

      These are Miss Schrader's own words; " I am not suggesting an interpolation of Martha into individual verses like John 11:1. I am suggesting an interpolation of Martha into the entire chapter!"

      To which I will allow the Masters of what Edward Miller terms the "Sound School" to speak;

      "Conjectural emmendation can be allowed no place whatever in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament...There is in fact no need for it,--nor can be: so very ample, as well as so very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament." -Burgon.

      "Conjectural emendation must never be resorted to,--even in passages of acknowledged difficulty" -Scrivener

      Delete
  19. I think you mean "too", not "to", but no matter, either way I disagree with you. Once again, you misunderstand. I never said, nor even implied,that "manuscript readings matter little." Quite the contrary. You quoted my paragraph, please read it again carefully, otherwise we're just wasting our time. I'm talking about the accumulative numerical weight of the evidence, as I thought I made clear. This has nothing to do with theory. My point is that scholars often wrongly parade a long string of manuscript witnesses, emphasizing how many there are, and cite this as evidence in support of a given reading. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! But it's still done over and over again! It is bad methodology and its bad science, and it's especially bad textual criticism. None of this is "theory"; it really isn't. I once published a re-reading of a 2nd century papyrus fragment of the poet Theognis, of which there were not many, although there were plenty of Medieval mss. available. The new reading was never before attested, but it fixed, that is emended, all previous readings of the verse -- enough so that my improved reading supported by the papyrus now even appears in the new Loeb classical volume of the Greek Elegists. The point is that in the article I cite a late, single 14th century Ms. K that supported the new papyrus reading twelve centuries earlier. But without the evidence of my new reading, nobody would ever have thought that a late ms. K could have independently preserved the true reading of a text, over-and-against the numerical weight of all the other ms. witnesses. Feel free to read the article, it's available on line, at no cost to you. But do realize that none of this is theory."

    ReplyDelete
  20. I appreciate your conciliatory reply. But here's where we differ, and must leave it at that. I do not share your overly high view of scripture that imputes an infallibility to the text we now possess. I can maybe, on a good day, allow a higher view of Biblical text, "in the originals", but not with what we have. I can suggest many textual emendations in the NT. Ours are sacred documents copied by human beings. There are still wholesale corrupt passages in parts of the NT, especially in the Gospel of Mark, and I can prove that, and many, too, in Romans. These texts weren't that way as autographs, but that's how they have come down to us in their present form. How does one argue, theologically, that every Biblical scribe that ever existed was somehow prevented by God from making mistakes? It's a risible proposition. What, in God's name, are the actual, conceivable mechanics behind such a proposition? Automatic writing? Of course not. But think about it. Really think about it. I have. What did God actually do? What is the actual form of so-called inspiration? How did it actually work? Was there a dove and a little beam of light shining down on the papyrus sheet, as old paintings sometimes show? I mean, really think about it and don't just ape age-old confessional statements and quotes from the pious. It doesn't work for me, but engage your mind. Does God want us to worship the Bible? No ancient texts we possess are beyond corruption, not even divine ones. Most of the NT might be textually solid, but not all of it. Those are the facts, as I know them. I am as convinced of this as you are convinced otherwise; so help me, from a point of view of grace, faith, or logic how it can be otherwise and don't just quote authorities for whom I have no respect. Even God is unable to prevent a completely uncorrupted text from coming down to us, nor would He want to. This may rattle our cages a bit, but in my eyes there is no room for Bible-olatry. It's inimical to God's plan. Humans did the best they could. We don't have the original autographs, plain and simple. No confessional statement I know of suggests the Bible we do have is inerrant. Your quotes from others continue to betray a confessional stance more radical than what I can accept or even know. Yes, I realize the inherent dangers we face, but that is why God has given us minds to help us figure this all out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tommy Wasserman,
    Well it has been interesting to observe the various reactions to the untenable Martha-interpolation theory that Schrader has proposed. As things wrap up (I think) -- for I see nothing whatever that touches my refutation at http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/08/mary-martha-and-john-11.html -- I have a different sort of question to offer:
    If I were to
    (A) tell you that the Virgin Mary spoke to me, and told me to seek out Mary Magdalene, and
    (B) proceed to write a song with lyrics that said that Mary Magdalene would bring secret knowledge, and reveal the true gospel when the time is right, proclaiming that our real spiritual problem is not sin, but failure to be who you are --
    and then
    (C) meticulously collect a series of unrelated scribal mistakes, and
    (D) propose that the scribal mistakes are not ordinary scribal mistakes, or the effects of ordinary scribal tendencies, but are actually vestiges of the original text, lost in all extant copies, in which Mary Magdalene (= Mary of Bethany) has a more prominent role, so prominent that everything attributed to Martha in John 11 originally was attributed to Mary Magdalene instead --

    If I did these things, do you see how some folks might suspect, despite my protests to the contrary, that I had an agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tommy Wasserman9/15/2019 4:16 pm

    Jim Snapp, I believe Schrader made her personal experience that inspired her to write a song many years before she got into a doctoral program, where she has now been training in palaeography and textual criticism. I think it is best to avoid this "guilt by association" type of argument to that she has an agenda (perhaps you have one yourself), and stick instead to the textual evidence. You obviously follow this blog, so you have probably seen my arguments which may or may not be similar to you have offered. I think Schrader's thesis as such is untenable. Hence, I do not agree at all with Roy Kotansky, although I respect his scholarship tremendously, that Occam's razor can be applied in the way he proposes. I have referred to my article on Mark 1:1 which lays out the methodology for those who want to know more, and I will leave it at that. This is now the final comment on this blogpost. I have already deleted scores of comments about matters of faith which may be interesting but not really related to the main post. I think it is now time to move on.

    ReplyDelete