Mark Ward posted “Do We Have the Text of John 11” on YouTube December 15, 2022. In it, Mark “interviews” Darrell Post, a former teacher at Maranatha Baptist University,[i] about the Greek text/manuscripts of the Gospel of John, chapter 11. I write “interview” because it is short on interview, and long on presentation. The material presented by Post is quite interesting.
Details presented
“There are 945 words [in John chapter 11] in two of the
three current edition of the Greek NT, with a third edition including 952
words.”[ii]
In the 1390 manuscripts Post has checked thus far, there are 3785
variations.[iii]
He breaks them down in this way.
- Nonsense readings/Obvious errors - 950
- Easily identified mistakes - 1577[iv]
- Singular readings (variation found in only one manuscript) - 856
- Sort order (words not in dispute, only the order) - 75
- 3785 minus 3458 leaves 327 variations that are omissions (175), additions (87), and substituted words (65).
Post says that the only variants of these 327 that should concern readers
are those that are (1) difficult to resolve and (2) affect the meaning of the
text. Of the 327 left, Post believes only five of those could be concerning. He
concludes that even these five difficult to resolve variations do not affect
our understanding of the text.[v]
In this (above) we have a quick breakdown of the information
Darrell Post produces, whether or not we agree.
Coopting a presentation
Post refers to an attack on the historicity of John 11 by a
Duke PhD student. He says, “That’s where I got started with John 11.” So Darrell Post
did this work in response to Duke PhD student Elizabeth Schrader attacking the
historical content of John chapter 11. She suggests that the sister named Martha was added
to this story in John 11 in the second century, and that the Mary of the story
was originally Mary Magdalene before scribes changed the context. (See “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century?” Harvard Theological Review, Volume 110, Issue 3,
July 2017, pp. 360 – 392.)
In discussing the manuscripts of John 11, Post responds to
skeptics like Schrader and Bart Ehrman. However, Mark coopts this presentation
out of its context to take jabs at “Textual Absolutists” – Christians who,
unlike Schrader and Ehrman, believe the Bible is inspired, infallible, and
providentially preserved. Nice.
Practically every time Darrell Post mentions something about
skeptics, Mark breaks in to make a comment on “Textual Absolutists” (as if the word “skeptic” triggers him).
For examples:
0:10:40 Post discusses that the number of variations to words (3785 to 945) is troubling to people. It is one reason why the extreme skeptical side has such force. Mark breaks in and comments that the “Textual Absolutist” view is so appealing because “They don’t even have to think about all these variations because they can just pick one...” This is a horrible mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. We don’t even think about it? Moreover, eventually, our problem is their problem as well, because they also have to “pick one.”
0:45:10 Post talks about skeptics having so much “fuel” (“the embarrassment of riches”) from which to argue. Mark jumps in again to take another swipe at the TR/KJV folks (Textual Absolutists). Folks in that world don’t “talk at this level of detail.” Another mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. Some TR and/or KJV folks can and do discuss the manuscript evidence. However, “most people” – including Mark Ward – do not talk at the level of detail presented by Darrel Post in this video, having collated 1390 manuscripts (as well as 57 lectionaries).
1:04:00 Post is excited when he says this real data shows his students that they do not have to follow the skeptics. They can be confident in the face of the arguments of people like Ehrman and Schrader. Mark breaks in to assure his listeners that “They also don’t have to listen to the Textual Absolutists who say that any textual variation is demonic.” Can we say again “lowest common denominator?” In addition, I wonder if Mark believes any textual variation could be either deliberate or demonic?
I realize Mark’s wheelhouse is fighting the “Textual
Absolutists,” but this constant cutting in on Post and down of Christians who
believe their Bible really blunts the force of Posts’s arguments against
biblical skepticism and would have been better left to another day. However,
that is not Mark’s way.
The evidentiary method
0:06:45 Post says he has collated about 75% of the
continuous manuscripts and “I don’t expect to find much new or different.”[vi]
Yes, it is probable that there are no major differences
in the remaining uncollated manuscripts. However, we don’t know until we find
out! When manuscript evidence drives the conclusions, then the conclusions are
only as good as the amount of evidence inspected. The conclusions are subject
to change when new evidence is uncovered. They must usually remain “as far as we know.”
This is the basic difference between a presuppositional
approach and an evidentiary approach. The presuppositional approach looks at
the biblical data first – that is, what the Bible says about itself. The
manuscript evidence should be dealt with – and honestly sometimes can be hard
to account for. However, the Bible itself establishes our doctrine of
bibliology, just as it establishes every other doctrine we believe. The
evidentiary approach looks at the manuscript data first, then seeks to conform
what the Bible says about itself to the data. This is a reason many modern
evangelical scholars now reject providential preservation as a biblical
doctrine.[vii]
Don’t miss the irony
In “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the
Second Century,” Elizabeth Schrader attacks the historicity of the Lazarus,
Martha, and Mary story of John 11. The Mary Magdalene research and biography of
this Duke PhD student manifests to be both augural and feminist-agenda driven.[viii]
She describes the inauguration of her research as being an answer to prayer given while she was praying to the Virgin Mary. “Maybe you should talk to Mary Magdalene
about this,” Schrader relates. What’s more, biblical writers and later scribes
were guilty of misogyny.
“Schrader’s central discovery, which she wrote about in a paper published by the Harvard Theological Review two years ago, is that Mary Magdalene’s role was deliberately downplayed by biblical scribes to minimize her importance… Schrader argues that the Mary of the original text is Mary Magdalene, not Martha or Martha’s sister, Mary... The reason for the change, Schrader said, was that later scribes did not want to give Mary Magdalene too big a role in the events of Jesus’ life... Schrader posited that Mary Magdalene caused tension with Jesus’ male disciples, especially his handpicked deputy, Peter, that is evident in several noncanonical gospels... Schrader’s paper comes at a time when many scholars are trying to recover women’s roles in early Christianity – roles the early church fathers tried to suppress.”[ix]
The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog made three posts for
Elizabeth Schrader to discuss/promote her idea about John 11. Tommy Wasserman, the
editor who posted it for her, disagreed with her overall conclusion, but wrote,
“I think her findings are very significant”. Furthermore, he writes, “I have
invited Elisabeth to share her research.” There was some pushback by commenters,
but also quite a bit of breathless gushing over her presentation.[x]
Don’t miss the irony. Darrell Post researches and opposes
Elizabeth Schrader’s unorthodox work against biblical texts and biblical truth.
Mark Ward coopts this discussion derived from opposition to Schrader’s work, to
use (at least in part) against “Textual Absolutists.” Mark’s friends at the
Evangelical Textual Criticism[xi]
blog invite and promote Schrader’s work as at least something important for
evangelical text critics to consider “significant.” Hmm. “People are strange.” So says Jim Morrison.
Miscellaneous
0:05:20 Darrell Post mentions the shift in the goalposts of
textual criticism. Most text critical scholarship has shifted and is no longer
trying to reconstruct the original text. Rather than trying to rediscover what
the original says, some of them even present the text of the first 200 years of church
history as “chaotic.” This is a fact some evangelical text critics have tried to deny or obfuscate.
1:08:10 Near the conclusion of the video, Mark takes down
those of us who stand where we have always stood and use what we always have.
He lectures us about sowing discord among the brethren. Nothing for the new
guys who come along and want to change. Never discord sown by them, right?
Unbelievable. It no longer takes two to tango.
In summation, with this video Mark gets “utter gold” and “Textual Absolutists” get the shaft.
[ii] 945 words in the NA-28 and Tyndale House Greek NT. 953 words in the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text. In addition, there are 942 Greek words in 1881 Westcott-Hort text, and 958 in 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus.
[iii] Note, for example, that the same variation in two different texts is counted as two variations.
[iv] This includes minor variations of spelling, abbreviations, different form of the same word, confusing vowel sounds, corrected mistakes and mistaken corrections.
[v] John 11:19 (“the Jews came to Martha and Mary” or “the Jews came to ‘the ones around’ Martha and Mary”); John 11:31 “saying” or “thinking”); John 11:45 (“things” or “thing”); John 11:50 (“for us” or “to you”); John 11:57 (“a commandment” or “commandments”). Post also asserts that outside of issues like the Pericope Adulterae, the Long Ending of Mark, and some few others, most of the stuff of variants is innocuous like what he presents about John 11.
[vi] Darrell has also collated about 3% of the available lectionaries. In a comment posted on YouTube, he points out some difficulties with the accuracy of the numbers – “the INTF keeps cataloging newly found minuscules” (which increases the number) and “as I collate, I occasionally find manuscripts where chapter 11 was lost from a damaged manuscript, and so this reduces the number.”
[vii] They merely accept preservation of artifacts as an historical reality.
[viii] Schrader’s Duke Scholar page states, “Her research interests include the New Testament Gospels, the Nag Hammadi corpus, Mary Magdalene, textual criticism, and feminist theology.”
[x] And apparently there were several comments that Wasserman did not like and deleted. One commenter was accused of “mansplaining” (the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing).
[xi] Mark has posts there. Additionally, he and ETC co-editor/contributor Elijah Hixson are members together of the Textual Confidence Collective.
No comments:
Post a Comment