| |
A brief
thesis: Modern Scholarship Recognizes Textual Corruption,
But By Whom?
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, has written a book entitled,
"The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" (Oxford
University Press, 1993). Dr. Ehrman is no newcomer to the
field of NT textual criticism. He has written extensively
on the subject and is very well respected in this field.
Many believe he will replace Dr. Bruce Metzger as
American's leading textual critic. Therefore, what he has
to say should be taken with a great deal of interest.
Dr. Ehrman believes that many of the textual variants
found within NT manuscripts are a result of deliberate
alterations by orthodox scribes in order to produce a NT
which agreed more readily with orthodoxy. His conclusion,
that orthodox scribes corrupted the text of the NT, is
not something with which we would agree. But it is import
for us to understand his reasoning, for he is examining
the evidence and sees what we have seen for a number of
years. That the textual evidence reveals that some in the
course of transmission deliberately corrupted the text of
the NT in order for it to agree with their theological
position.
For years the standard thought among NT textual critics
was that most, if not all, textual variants were the
result of scribal errors. Supporters of biblical
preservation, however, have argued that many of the
textual variants were not accidental, but were
deliberate. While this view is overwhelmingly rejected by
modern textual critics (conservative and liberal alike),
the historical evidence always pointed to the fact that
early heretical leaders and scribes deliberately changed
various texts (sometimes, ever so slightly) in order for
the text to either support their position or neutralize
one that differed from their position.
We can cite the testimony of early Christians who claimed
that heretics were corrupting the text of Scripture in
order to support their heresies. Dionysius (d. 265)
claimed the heretics would: ". . . falsify the
Scriptures of the Lord, when they have done the same in
writings that are not at all their equal." (Eusbius,
Hist. Eccl. IV, 23). Irenaeus (d. 202), noted that some
Gnostics corrupted the Gospel of Mark: "Those,
again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that
Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who
suffered, preferring the Gospel of Mark, if they read it
with a love of truth, may have their errors
rectified." (Against Heresies, III:11:7). Irenaeus
goes on to say of the heretic Marcion that he, " . .
. cut up that according to [the Gospel of] Luke."
(Ibid.). (Many of these and others I mention in my book
"Crowned With Glory").
The information here is nothing new, but to have a
leading textual critic recognize that deliberate
corruption of the text occurred in the early Church is.
While I differ with his conclusions, I greatly appreciate
that he recognized that corruption of the text accounts
for many of the textural variants known today, especially
those concerning the person of Christ.
Ehrman writes:
>>This (i.e. the 1st - 3rd centuries) was also a
period in which various Christian groups were actively
engaged in internecine conflicts, particularly over
Christology. A number of variant readings reflect these
conflicts, and appear to have been generated
"intentionally." Scribes sometimes changed
their manuscripts to render them more patently orthodox,
either by importing their Christology into a text that
otherwise lacked it or by modifying a text that could be
taken to support contrary views.<< (The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, p. 29).
His conclusion, that some scribes changed their
manuscripts to support orthodoxy, differs from that of
ours and the writings of the early Christians who laid
the charge of corruption at the feet of heretics.
Nonetheless, Ehrman has correcting noted that the
evidence reveals a deliberate corruption of the text, a
position we have proclaimed for several years. And, what
are these verses which reveal such corruption that Dr.
Ehrman takes note of? The very ones we note that have
been corrupted by heretical groups (such as Luke 2:33,
42; John 1:18; Romans 14:10; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy
3:16; and 1 John 5:7 to name only a few).
When we proclaim that these verses, and others, were
corrupted by heretical groups citing historical evidence
for such a conclusion, we are mocked by modern scholars
who claim there is no such evidence. When Ehrman
considers the same evidence and concludes that the
corruption was a result of orthodox scribes, the same
textual critics consider his view "scholarly."
Regardless, the evidence is now coming to light and being
recognized by scholars that deliberate corruption of the
text occurred early in the Church, and many of these
corruptions were directly related to biblical
Christology. Therefore, when critics of the Traditional
Text, such as James R. White and D. A. Carson, proclaim
that there is no evidence that textual variants were a
result of deliberate corruption, they would do well to
update their position in light of 21st century
understanding of textual criticism. Conclusions may and
do differ, but the evidence from which those conclusions
are made is constant. Manuscripts of the NT differ
regarding the doctrine of Christ, and someone
deliberately corrupted them.
|
