There are Three who (mis)textualize...
JW:
Regarding Christian Textual Transmission the superior Skeptic should keep in mind that there were three great Textual Critics of The Early Church:
All three were considered the premier Textual Critics of their time by the Church and authorities (by the Church) for what the Christian Bible
should say. I have faith though that while the average Skeptic may appreciate their value to Textual Criticism for the evidence they provide, even though it always requires a discount for bias, their (mis)conclusions are not properly appreciated.
Origen c. 220 = Wrote before Christianity gained control and thus was likely witness to major Textual problems which could not easily be solved in his time. It appears likely that in Origen's time:
- 1) GMark ended at 16:8.
2) It was known that GMatthew originally had no virgin birth.
3) There was evidence that GLuke was originally Marcion's.
4) There was more evidence that GJohn was originally Gnostic.
The above helps explain why we have no significant Manuscript witness to the Christian Bible through Origen's time. Subsequent Christianity did not want it. It also helps explain why we have relatively little surviving Textual Criticism by Origen. Subsequent Christianity did not want it. Instead of Aristotle's
Poetics,
The Name of the Rose should have involved Origen's lost commentary on GMark. In the rare surviving Textual Criticism of Origen we do get a clear picture of the value and probable effect of his
conclusions regarding Textual Criticism:
https://www.alexpoulos.com/blog/2017/2/ ... y-on-ps-77
We regularly say that the psalms with the prefix “of understanding” use this superscription to direct the listener to investigate carefully what has been said, as they need interpretation and explication, since every psalm with this prefix has dark sayings, riddles, and parables. This is indeed the case here, for we have the superscription, “of understanding, by Asaph” and immediately it says in the psalm, “I shall open my mouth in parables, I shall speak riddles as from the beginning.” (Ps. 77:2). One must know that Matthew mentions this saying– writing about how the Savior spoke in parables, he said, “so that the passage may be fulfilled ‘I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall speak in riddles as of from the beginning’ or rather, ‘ <I shall declare things hidden> since the establishing of the world’. (1) Though Matthew paraphrased with those sorts of words what was said in this way here, there occurred a scribal error in the copies of the gospel, for it says, “so that what was said through the prophet Isaiah may be fulfilled, ‘I will open my mouth in parables’”. It’s likely that one of the very first scribes found the text, “so that what was said through the prophet Asaph,” and supposed that it was an error because he did not realize that Asaph was a prophet. This caused him rashly to write “Isaiah” instead of “Asaph” because of his unfamiliarity with the prophet’s name
...
Now one must acknowledge this, that if someone ever proposes something as a contradiction in the scripture, we must not regard these as contradictions, as we know that either we don’t understand something or a scribal error has occurred
JW:
So says the premier Christian Textual critic of his time. Note that it's bad enough that the leading Textual Critic is such a bad Textual Critic for his own purposes of determining likely original but the larger problem is he was considered an authority for the larger Church. He is providing evidence that in his time there were major such problems as evidenced by all/most Manuscripts and he was offering general and specific solutions.
Eusebius c. 300 = Almost 100 years after Origen and Origen's invitation to manufacture solutions to textual problems. In Eusebius' time the textual problems are still many but there is now some extant textual solutions. Again, Eusebius is useful to Textual Criticism regarding what the textual evidence is in his time but his attitude towards conclusions is just as bad as Origen's and again, as the premier Textual critic of his time, he provides the authority for Textual Change/Forgery. This is best illustrated by his commentary on the Textual problem of the ending of GMark:
http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanend ... l#eusebius
For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question. But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent.
The above always only seems to be invoked in the context of the ending of GMark, but actually it is more important as
general evidence of Eusebius' value himself as a Textual Critic and his effect on the subsequent Patristics.
Note that unlike Origen, Eusebius wrote after Christianity gained significant control, giving Eusebius freedom to write what he wanted and probably orders to write what was wanted. I suspect it would have been illegal under Constantine to contradict Eusebius or hold contradictory writings or at least be a serious health risk. Ken Olson look out!
Jerome c. 400 = Jerome goes beyond Eusebius giving permission to others to choose what they want their Scriptures to say to being willing to choose for himself based again on the critical ending of GMark:
The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.
Unlike Eusebius Jerome goes on to include the forged 16:9-20 in his Vulgate even though at the same time he clearly presents evidence that 16:8 is the original ending.
We see all of the above reflected in the earliest significant surviving Manuscripts which are few in number and relatively close to Jerome. Exactly what we would expect =
- 1. Origen advised manufactured solutions.
2. Eusebius advised selecting the solution you wanted.
3. Jerome selected the solution he wanted.
Add in the Argument from Silence that there was no known Patristic in this time who said to the above, "Don't", or "Stop". Just "Don't stop".
The point of the above as it relates to this Thread is that the few early significant Manuscripts such as Sinaiticus likely reflect the time period when there was significant editing regarding serious Textual problems which makes even a few of these or only even one quite valuable and of measurable weight compared to subsequent manuscripts. For those who need points sharply explained, the above supports the possibility that at an extreme even one lone early reading such as Sinaiticus has the original reading.
The Word.
Joseph
Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)