the Copyists of the Early Christian Writings

In this chapter, Ehrman discusses the problems inherent in the system of copying sacred texts by hand and explores some of the reasons behind changes we know or guess exist (with examples & humor).

Spoilers follow

I’ve not read other people’s summaries yet since I wanted to read the book before the Cliff’s Notes, so this may or may not follow any kind of over-arching style or theme.

Ehrman’s first point is one that is close to all of us, since we’re in a book group. We assume that the copy of Misquoting that I’m reading from is identical to the copy you’re reading from. I can quote chapters, page numbers, and lines which you will find exactly in your copy. Currently, it’s not out in paperback, but if it were, the changes from hardcover to paperback we could logically assume to be restricted. The format would not change, nor would the chapter order, nor the wording he uses in the fifth sentence of page 47. These are assumptions we cannot make about the gospels. Not only does each of us very likely have a different translation of the bible into English, we can keep going back and find more and more differing copies.

Ehrman discusses reasons the copyists might have had for changing the text, from “heretics[…] alter[ing] the texts of scripture to make them say what they wanted them to mean” to “the orthodox tradition […] chang[ing] their texts […] in order to eliminate the possibility of their ‘misuse’ by [heretics]” (pg. 53). Then there are the mistakes: “slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another” either due to incompetence, inattention, or apathy (pg. 55). Interestingly (I found), people at the time understood that this was going on and took what steps they could to keep it from happening (see Rev. 22:18-19).

Ehrman’s first major example/discussion is of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. We don’t know if he wrote it or dictated it. If he wrote one copy, did he write only one and churches copied from it, or did he write a set number, each of which was copied numerous times, so that we end up with a distressing game of biblical telephone? If we put together all the copies that are extant today and compare them to one another, we find many differences, but this exercise does not necessarily get us any closer to the original letter. Ehrman notes that the oldest copy of this particular letter that we have today dates 150 years after Paul wrote it. We have no way of knowing how close (or far) it is to (or from) the “original”.

Ehrman also discusses the relationship of the Gospel of John to the other three Gospels. He notes that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all guessed to have used a similar source for their Gospels (since they are so similar), one which John either had no access to or regard for. There are many events in John that are not noted in MM&L and likewise, MM&L have events that are not noted in John. John’s tone and discussion of Jesus is very different from that of MM&L. In addition to these outward discrepancies, there are two notable passages, at the beginning and at the end, which we can say with near certainty did not exist in the “original” Gospel of John. They were written in a different tone, voice, and with different key words & phrases.

Ehrman notes that, given these difficulties in knowing what the “original” text may have been, it could be considered useless to discuss it at all. He does believe, however, that there is value in examining the oldest copies we have access to due to its relevance for Christians as a sacred text and for “Western civilization” as an historical artifact (pg. 69).

I might take issue with some of his conclusions, but in general, I find the discussion of the problems inherent in copying valuable. It applies not just to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ Amen but to any primary source (the holy grails of the historian) dating before Gutenberg. It interests me, given Ehrman’s introduction and personal investment, that he is able to put aside the discussion of the “original” text in lieu of “what we have”. I understand his view if he is a historian: this is all we’ve got to work with, no sense lamenting the curves. However, he indicated at the beginning that he was (and is no longer) a bible literalist. I’m not certain where this discussion of imperfect texts fits in if he is a Christian (or even if it can).

As a no-longer Christian, this discussion of changes to The Original (in big, scary letters and God Voice) is fodder for my “see? I told you so” feelings. And maybe if this text were required at Christian schools we might all have a better understanding of the fallibility of man at large, but I’m not certain where this fits in with faith. My faith is a paradox because I find the need to believe stronger than the knowledge of atheism. So I believe in things that aren’t there, I don’t see this as any different from most religions, I just admit it to myself. Does Ehrman also admit that he believes in the sovereignty of a book he knows for a fact to be imperfect at best, fabricated at worst?

The Bible is a source of many great teachings. But so are many books. The Bible is also the source of many really bad teachings, as are many books. If anyone follows my example when I die, they will find it to have been profoundly influenced by Terry Pratchett. I love the way he puts things and the humor he brings to subjects of faith and religion. I don’t worship him or his books, but I find that they have many profound teachings in them. I think this approach to Bible-reading might be possible (not for me, I can’t see the forest anymore) but I wonder if this is the approach that Ehrman takes.

I don’t know why I’m so concerned with Ehrman’s faith/beliefs at the end of the day. He brought it up in the introduction, and I found it a valuable discussion—a humanization, if you will, of the author; a context in which to put his words. Now it seems I’m drowning in context.