Today only a few scientists read theological books, and theologians dispense almost entirely with scientific reading. Neither side expects much from the other. So today theologians confine themselves to the interpretation of the sacred texts of their traditions, and take no interest in what can be seen through the Hubble space telescope. …

I find this state of things unsatisfactory, and would plead for a new ‘natural theology’, in which scientific findings tell us something about God, and theological insights something about nature.

Jürgen Moltmann, Science and Wisdom

The reading of καυθησομαι has typically been regarded as the original text. This can be seen in that all the earlier critical Greek editions of the New Testament prefer it,[2] it is found in most English translations,[3] and that it is chosen by the majority of commentators and interpreters of this verse.[4] Alternatively, there has been an increasingly prevalent trend towards selecting καυχησωμαι as the original reading, a decision which is seen in recent critical editions,[5] commentaries,[6] and English translations.[7]

In an attempt to arbitrate this textual problem, this essay will utilize a reasoned eclectic methodology by first examining the external evidence of manuscripts, versions, and patristic attestation, followed by the internal evidence of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities.

The External Evidence

There are three readings that have noteworthy support in the Greek manuscript tradition: καυχησωμαι (aorist middle subjunctive of καυχαομαι), καυθησομαι (future indicative passive of καιω), and καυθησωμαι (future subjunctive passive of καιω).[8] While this study only focuses upon the viability of the first two readings, the external support for καυθησωμαι will also be called upon due to the fact that it supports καυθησομαι.[9] The focus of this study precludes an in-depth look at how the future subjunctive reading arose but suffice to say it is likely due to the fact that the indicative is seldom found in a ινα clause.[10]

The following brief apparatus lists the support for each reading:[11]

Καυχησωμαι

• Manuscripts: P46, 01, 02, 03, 048,[12] 0150, 33, 1739*
• Versions: Coptic^{(Sa, Bo)}
• Patristics: Origen, Didymus, Jerome

Καυθησομαι

• Manuscripts: 04, 06, 010, 012, 020, 81, 104, 263, 1175, 1881*
• Versions: Old Latin, Italian, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethopic, Slavonic
• Patristics: Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Jerome

Καυθησωμαι

• Manuscripts: 044, 6, 256, 365, 424, 1739^c, Byzantine
• Versions: None
• Patristics: Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Gregory-Nyssa, Chrysostom, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Augustine

The reading καυχησωμαι is revealed to be a primarily Alexandrian reading due to being found only in a wide range of Alexandrian witnesses: papyrus (P46), uncials (01, 02, 03, 048, 0150), minuscules (33, 1739), and versions (both the Sahidic and Boharic forms of the Coptic). The earliest patristic attestation to this reading is also from Alexandrian witnesses (Origen and Didymus). While this reading is isolated to a fairly limited geographical area, with little attestation elsewhere, it must be noted that some of the uncials and minuscules which attest to it are generally considered to be some of the most significant extant manuscripts for arriving at the original text.[13]

Kαυθησομαι is supported by the uncial 048, many late minuscules of Egyptian provenance, the second-century translations of the Syriac,[14] Coptic, and Itala,[15] as well as the second-century writings of Tertullian, Clement,[16] and Origen (who was aware of both main readings).  This is noteworthy since it demonstrates the reading existed in the Greek manuscript tradition by at least the mid-second century. So despite the fact that the reading is not found in any early papyri, but is instead found only in later uncials and minuscules, the support supplied by the patristic and versional evidence effectively puts it on par with the external support for καυχησωμαι.

Perera (2005, 114) summarizes the external evidence as favoring καυχησωμαι in terms of both age and categories of manuscripts, yet this is not an accurate assessment of the data considering that both readings can actually be dated back to the second-century. To sum up, both variants have early external evidence but the limited geographical distribution of καυχησωμαι as an Alexandrian reading gives the upper hand to καυθησομαι.

Internal Evidence

The criterion of transcriptional probabilities deals with such matters as scribal habits and paleographical features of a text. It attempts to answer the question as to which textual variant a scribe would have more likely been responsible for introducing into the manuscript tradition. Due to the similarity of the two readings of καυχησωμαι  and καυθησομαι both phonetically and graphically, the variant could have easily arisen from a hearing error in dictation or a visual blemish in an exemplar.

Perera (2005, 120) and Comfort (2008, 515) have suggested that since καυθησομαι is evocative of martyrdom, it is possible a scribal change occurred in an attempt to assimilate the verse to Dan. 3 and its depiction of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being thrown into the fiery furnace. However, it could easily be argued that instead of a scribe changing the text to provide an allusion to Daniel, it was actually Paul himself who intended that allusion in the first place. It is also regularly pointed out that during the time in which this epistle was written, martyrdom by burning had not yet become a widespread phenomenon, for death would have most likely be meted out by other means. Death by burning did become a popular form of execution later on, thus providing the impetus leading to the introduction of καυθησομαι into the manuscript tradition.

Turning now to intrinsic probabilities we approach the variants by examining the vocabulary of the author throughout the text of 1 Corinthians, as well as the larger corpus of Pauline writings. The root verb καυχαομαι is found thirty-five times in the Pauline corpus and can rightly be described as a preferred Pauline term, whereas the root verb καιω is found nowhere else in Paul’s writings.[17] Though this alone cannot be used to decisively adjudicate this variant as there is nothing prohibiting a unique occurrence of a word here by Paul. In fact, one can legitimately argue that a unique occurrence of a word here by Paul could have led a scribe to change it to a more common word that Paul used.[18]

From a contextual perspective, καυχησωμαι is undoubtedly the harder reading and by applying the text-critical principle of lectio difficilior potior, “the more difficult reading is stronger”, it would support the notion that the text was changed to καυθησομαι by a confused scribe. However, various scholars have proposed arguments endorsing the contextual validity of καυχησωμαι. For example, Petzer (1989, 235) proposes that in 1 Cor. 13:1-3 Paul is using parallel argumentation that grows progressively more hyperbolic and climaxes in the use of boasting in the final verse. To elaborate, in each verse Paul speaks of a possible action obtainable by the Corinthians (13:1 – speaking in the tongues of men; 13:2 – prophesying and having faith), which is then followed by an absurd hyperbolic exaggeration of the action (13:1 – speaking in the tongues of angels; 13:2 – knowing and comprehending all mysteries and having faith to move mountains), and finally the usefulness of such an action without love (αγαπην δε μη εχω) is elucidated. In 1 Cor. 13:3, the possible action attainable by the audience is the giving away of one’s possessions, but Petzer does not believe that the reading of καυθησομαι logically follows through with this pattern, as the burning of one’s body is not an unattainable hyperbolic exaggeration of giving away one’s possessions.[19] While this is a salient observation, the alternative reading of καυχησωμαι does not seem to keep this pattern intact either, as boasting about giving up one’s body is hardly an absurd hyperbolic exaggeration.

A structural look at 1 Cor. 13:1-3 reveals that each verse uses the same congruency of imagery in its makeup. Each verse is comprised of two conditional protases, the negative clause αγαπην δε μη εχω, and then an apodosis. The protases in verse 1 reference the “tongues of men and of angels”. These actions, without love, are then described in the apodosis as noisy gongs and clanging cymbals, where the imagery of noise is continuous between the protases and the apodosis. In verse 2, the protases speak of “prophesying” and having “all knowledge and all faith.” These virtues, without love, are described by Paul in the apodosis as “nothing”, which again is continuous with the protases in that “nothing” is the antithesis of “all”. Finally, the first protasis of verse 3 speaks of giving away “all I have” and the second protasis speaks of handing over “my body.” Regardless as to whether the second protasis contains the reading of καυθησομαι or καυχησωμαι, they are both in continuity with the apodosis (“I gain nothing”) by being antithetical to it (i.e. the contrast between “all” and “nothing” again). Yet, καυχησωμαι (“if I deliver up my body that I may boast”) spoils this pattern of continuity by adding a pejorative element which is not found in the previous verses.

Conversely, Petzer (1989, 235) and Fee (1987, 633-35) anticipate this argument and assert that the boasting in this verse carries positive connotations. In particular, Fee says that Paul is speaking of his own bodily sufferings that lead to the positive boasting of the salvation of the Corinthians. Though contra to Fee and Petzer, one can argue that the reading of καυχησωμαι should rightly be seen in a pejorative manner due to how boasting is portrayed this way earlier in the epistle (1 Cor. 1:29, 31; 3:21; and 4:7). Thus if one grants the originality of καυθησομαι, then the giving up of one’s body to be burned conserves the positive aspect of the protases and so preserves the full stylistic pattern of this pericope.

Conclusion

There is no obvious answer to this textual dilemma in 1 Cor. 13:3 as both the external and internal evidence can be marshaled to support either reading. With that said, it is the conclusion of this short study that the reading of καυθησομαι is to be slightly favored due to its widespread early attestation, together with the internal coherence it can bring to the larger pericope of 1 Cor. 13:1-3. The variant of καυχησωμαι no doubt entered the Alexandrian textual tradition quite early, possibly either as the result of an inadvertent scribal mishap, or as a deliberate attempt to correct what was thought to be an erroneous reading of an indicative καυθησομαι in a ινα clause.

He has a great many encounters, but does not really experience anything, since although he wants to see everything, he internalizes nothing and reflects upon nothing. He has a great many contacts but no relationships, since he is unable to linger because he is always ‘in a hurry’. He devours ‘fast food’, preferably while standing, because he is no longer able to enjoy anything; after all, a person needs time for enjoyment, and time is precisely what he does not have.

Jürgen Moltmann, (“Christianity and the Revaluation of the Values of Modernity and of the Western World”,  in A Passion for God’s Reign)

The kingdom of peace comes through a child, and liberation is bestowed on the people who become as children: disarmingingly defenseless, disarming through their defenselessness, and making others defenseless because they themselves are so disarming.

Jürgen Moltmann, Power of the Powerless

Title:

Series: Text and Canon of the New Testament

Editor: Daniel Wallace

Bibliographical Info: 266 + 17 (indices)

Cover: Soft

Publisher: Kregel, 2011

Purchase it at Amazon

With thanks to Kregel for the gratuitous review copy.

Read Part I here.

Chapter 4 contains Adam Messer’s contribution to this volume with an essay titled, Patristic Theology and Recension in Matthew 24.36 – An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Text-Critical Methodology. This chapter is similar to the previous one in that it approaches a NT textual variant with the purpose of investigating the charge that passages in the NT were deliberately changed for theological reasons. The variant found in Matt 24.36 is whether, when discussing the parousia, Matthew recorded Jesus’ caveat that the Son doesn’t know the day and hour (ουδε ο υιος).

Messer provides an examination of the theological motivations that might have caused the omission of the phrase from Matthew, as well as the Patristic evidence for this variant. It was quite interesting to see the excuses that some of the church fathers came up with in order to reconcile how Jesus could say that he didn’t know the day nor hour of his return with the belief that Jesus is God. It reminds me of how many people today come up with some creative explanations to reconcile parts of the Bible which contradict each other.

In chapter 5 Tim Ricchuiti provides us an essay title, Tracking Thomas: A Text-Critical Look at the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. Ricchuiti uses the canons of textual criticism to examine the differences between the Coptic and Greek versions of various logia of the Gospel of Thomas. The purpose of such an exercise? By comparing the Greek fragments to the Coptic text, Ricchuiti is aiming to to assess the merit of the Greek fragments against the Coptic text. He concludes that, inter alia, “scholars are on fairly solid ground when it comes to the assumption that the Greek represents an earlier strain of Thomas.” (226)

Brian Wright contributes the essay for chapter 6, Jesus as ΘΕΟΣ – A Textual Examination. Wright examines the seven verses in the New Testament which may very well call Jesus  “θεος” (John 1.1, 1.18, 20.28, Acts 20.28, Gal 2.20, Heb 1.8, and 2 Pet 1.1). Wright concludes that the three Johannine passages, Heb 1.8, and 2 Pet 1.1, do refer to Jesus as θεος, whereas Acts 20.28 and Gal 2.20 do not.

I believe that the point behind this essay was to show that despite the fact that many of the passages in the NT which call Jesus θεος have either grammatical problems or textual variants, it is still clear that the NT unambiguously refers to Jesus as θεος. While I wouldn’t disagree with this, it doesn’t take it far enough. I mean, having decided that the NT calls Jesus θεος, the question naturally arises as to what exactly this meant for the author of the text (as one can not just simply assume it means what mainstream Christianity thinks it means).

In general I don’t have many criticisms of this book. All of the essays were  thoroughly researched and exhaustively footnoted. It was kind of annoying, though, to see a few verses examined multiple times throughout the book (e.g. an examination of Matt 24.36 is found in three of the six essays). Also, seeing as one of the themes of the book was whether any important Christian doctrines are altered by NT variants, it would have been interesting to see Heb 2.9 tackled in this regard, i.e. what would be the theological implications of the reading “choris theou“? Is it easily reconcilable in a Trinitarian framework?

Despite these criticisms, I thought this book was great from a text-critical perspective and I am interested to see what other volumes this new series from Kregel brings forth.

Title:

Series: Text and Canon of the New Testament

Editor: Daniel Wallace

Bibliographical Info: 266 + 17 (indices)

Cover: Soft

Publisher: Kregel, 2011

Purchase it at Amazon

With thanks to Kregel for the gratuitous review copy.

This book is the inaugural volume of the Text and Canon of the New Testament series published by Kregel, a series which is set on tackling the thorny questions of textual and canonical criticism that arise in New Testament studies, e.g., were the NT books genuinely written by their ascribed authors? Do the books of the NT contradict one another historically and theologically? And so forth. This present volume examines a foundational issue for NT studies, which is whether we can recover the original autographic text or whether this claim is nothing but a pipe-dream. This book contains six essays which approach this question from various angles.

Chapter 1 contains the essay, Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament?, is by the editor of this volume, Daniel Wallace. This chapter is directly aimed at the works of Bart Ehrman. Wallace begins by noting his perplexity regarding Ehrman’s most popular work, Misquoting Jesus, which if read one way is not controversial, but if read another way then it directly contradicts the scholarly publications that Ehrman has published.

Wallace sets out three questions to answer in this chapter:

1. What is the number of the textual variants.
2. What is the nature of the textual variants.
3. What theological issues are at stake.

On the first question, Wallace mentions the usual arguments against Ehrman’s presentation of the data, e.g., the connection between the number of manuscripts and the number of variants. In other words, the more manuscripts one possesses of a text, then the more scribal errors there will be. That is the nature of the beast. If one possessed only a mere handful of manuscripts of a text, then sure there would be fewer variants, but then one could just complain that the paucity of manuscripts means we can not be certain about the original text. Interestingly, Wallace also compares the transmissional history of the NT to the Qur’an and notes that what Erhman says about the NT is more accurately representative of the Qur’an.

In discussing the variant of 616 in Revelation for the number of the beast, Wallace humorously notes that:

This textual variant does not change any cardinal belief of Christians, but, if original, it would send about seven tons of dispensational literature to the flames! (43)

Amen to that!

This essay finishes with up a mention of seven meaningful and viable variants in the NT, with a particular focus on Matt 24.36 (“nor the Son”) which is Ehrman’s  “prime example of Orthodox Corruption”.

Having read quite a few books by Ehrman, I think there is an easily recognizable difference between Bart Ehrman the scholar and Bart Ehrman the populist writer; the former is responsible for such works as The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, whereas the latter is responsible for such works as  Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted.

I’ve said before that I consider Orthodox Corruption to be an important book for anyone interested in early Christianity to read. Even Ehrman’s populist works can be useful as, for example, Misquoting Jesus contains quite a good introduction to NT textual criticism. Irrespective of this, Ehrman seemingly gives a different presentation and interpretation of the data in his populist works than he does in his scholarly works.  In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman paints the picture that the original text of the NT is inaccessible to us and that we just cannot know what the original manuscripts said. But then in Orthodox Corruption, Ehrman conveys the opposite because he needs to be able to show what the original text said (and what it was changed to), in order to demonstrate the thesis of this book (i.e. that textual changes occurred due to theologically motivated scribes).

Chapter 2 contains an essay by Philip Miller titled, The Least Orthodox Reading is to be Preferred: A New-Canon for New Testament Textual Criticism? Like the last essay, this one is also directly aimed at the works of Bart Ehrman. Miller believes that an unstated, but implicit, canon exists in Ehrman’s text-critical methodology. This canon is, as the chapter title bears out, that when confronted with a textual variant, the reading which appears to be in-sync with “orthodoxy” is to be regarded as a possible alteration to the more “unorthodox” reading.

Miller begins by showing that the reality of theologically motivated textual alterations is nothing new to the field of textual criticism. This is followed by a look at Ehrman’s book, The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture, which lays out his view as to the nature and scope of scribes deliberately altering the text to make it more patently orthodox. While I agree that deliberate textual alteration of the NT writings occurred on occasion, I disagree that it was some sort of large-scale programmatic phenomenon as Ehrman seemingly envisages it.

Miller then examines how Ehrman deals with some textual variants by looking at Ehrman’s methodology in light of the internal and external evidence. The main variants that Miller investigates are Matt 24.36, John 1.18, and Heb 2.9 (strangely enough, I actually tentatively agree with Ehrman on all three of these variants). Miller also lists another dozen or so variants that feature prominently in Orthodox Corruption, compares Ehrman’s conclusions to those of the NA/UBS text, and draws the conclusion that:

Ehrman’s application of the canon of unorthodoxy not only estranges him from the widely accepted NA27/UBS4 text but also fails to prove his thesis. … For Ehrman, it appears that the least orthodox reading is to be preferred and that this presupposed canon often results in textual decisions that are at odds with the mainstream reconstruction of the text. (83-4)

Miller then lists four criterion that needs to be proved before the canon of unorthodoxy can be demonstrated as valid. This is then followed with a five point critique of the canon of unorthodoxy. All in all, I think this essay does a good job at showing that Bart Ehrman, despite his protests to the contrary, is using the canon of orthodoxy (and in the process is effectively presupposing his conclusions by doing so).

Chapter 3, by Matthew Morgan, contains the essay The Legacy of a Letter: Sabellianism or Scribal Blunder in John 1.1c? Morgan discusses the reading of found John 1:1c that is found in two eight-century manuscripts – 019 and 032-S  – which both contain the reading και ο θεος ην ο λογος (the variant being the presence of the article before theos). Morgan says that,

If correct, this reading threatens the assertion that evangelical doctrine is unaffected by any variant. (92)

What follows is a brief look at the rise of Sabellianism, the reaction of “orthodox” church fathers against it, and an assessment on the historical viability that there was a Sabellian influence on the textual transmission of the NT. The meat of the chapter is next up. Here Morgan examines the scribal habits to be found in the two codices which possess the extra definite article – Regius (019, L) and Freerianus (032-S, W^s). He also provides a grammatical analysis of the variant using Colwell’s rule, and concludes that “the notion that the article with θεος supports an earlier Sabellian reading is an unsightly myth.” (124)

To be continued in Part II..

Here follows a few quotes on the virgin birth by a few of the theologians who reject its historicity.

Hans Kung said in On Being a Christian,

Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical-biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time.

Pannenberg says in volume II of his Systematic Theology:

Even though rumors circulated by opponents regarding the strange circumstances of the origin and birth of Jesus might have played a part in the development of the story, the relevant findings do not permit us to insist on the historical facticity of the virginity of Mary after the conception and birth of Jesus, at least in a medical sense. If we try to make this the real theme of the story of the birth of Jesus (cf. Isa. 7:14 LXX), we are false to the purpose of the narrative. Gynecology is not the issue, but Christian pneumatology. If the story as a whole is legendary, we have to interpret the details in terms of the christological aim and not as facts isolated from the context or from the general interpretative frame. The case is different if historical facticity is at issue, as in the case of the statements about the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:3ff.

Here are some of Moltmann’s thoughts on the virgin birth of Christ taken from The Way of Jesus Christ:

In a literary sense, the stories about the announcement of the virgin birth are legends. They are deliberately told in such a way that no mention is made of either witnesses or historical traditions. We are not told from whom the narrator heard the story. Neither Joseph nor Mary is named as guarantor. This distinguishes these stories so sharply from the testimonies of the men and women who witnessed the Easter appearances of the risen Christ, that is is impossible to talk about comparable miracles at the beginning of Christ’s life-history and at its end.

But it will be permissible for us to assume that the nativity stories are secondary, retroactive projections of the experiences of the Easter witnesses with the risen Christ who is present in the Spirit; for they transfer to the pre-natal beginnings of Christ precisely that which has become manifest in the risen One who is present in the Spirit. In this way the narrators follow the logic that future and origin must correspond. If Christ has ascended into heaven, then he must have come down from heaven; and if he is present in the Spirit of God, who is the giver of life (I Cor. 15.45), then he must have come into life from this divine Spirit.

Because the narrators make no distinction between history and legend in the modern sense, but intend to relate a ‘gospel’, no objection can be made to the modern designation ‘legend’ for the stories about Christ’s nativity. At that time the inherent truth of the nativity stories had to be expressed in the form of an aetiological myth. The truth is to be found precisely in this mythical story about Christ’s origin, not in the biological facts. It is therefore factually inappropriate to call the virgin birth historical, let alone ‘biological’; and modern positivist characterizations of this kind do anything but preserve the intention and truth of the story. In actual fact they destroy it. The narrators’ aim is not to report a gynaecological miracle. Their aim is to confess Jesus as the messianic Son of God and to point at the very beginning of his life to the divine origin of his person.

Das Testimonium Flavianum, (Ulrich Victor, NTS 52, 2010) – I am reading this German journal article in an attempt at improving my German reading comprehension. Considering that my German is abysmal, reading through this article will take me a long time I imagine! By the time I finish, I will hopefully have (1) understood the article, and (2) developed my German vocabulary and grammar knowledge a little bit.

The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context, (Michael Peppard) – I received this yesterday from Oxford University Press for review. The title explains what the book is about. Quite a good read so far.

1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia, (Nickelsburg and VanderKam) – Another book I received for review. This one is quite a large volume which I am reading through a tiny bit each day.

Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, (John Cooper) – I read through some of this a while back but then put it aside and forgot about it. Just started to read it again. Moltmann got me interested in panentheism and this book seems to be quite a good primer on the subject from Plato to the present.

The Ghost in the Atom: A discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics, (ed’s, Davies and Brown) – Apart from all the religious books I am reading, I like to supplement my reading with books on evolutionary biology or atomic theory. This book is, obviously, on the latter.

Do you think that Christianity as it is written in the Bible is a positive or negative influence on human behavior? I’m not counting here people who simply use it to support their existing morality, but those who sincerely take it all seriously and try and reconcile the good with the bad.

His response was:

There are parts of the Bible that are among the most radically life-affirming, love-demanding and morality-promoting texts any human being could ever read. But there are also deeply, deeply flawed parts that Western society has finally begun to realize should be set aside (like issues of sexuality). It is my firm conviction that the best way for believers (i.e., not for myself) to treat the Bible is to recognize that it is a human construct intended as an expression of faith in God, rather than as a divine construct intended as an expression of control over humanity.

I wholeheartedly concur.

Already cracked it open and read a little bit of it. Only took a few pages until the author gave a nice critique of Simon Gathercole’s, The Preexistent Son. Hopefully the book will live up to the high expectations I have of it, particularly the chapter devoted to the usage of Son of God in Mark.

HT to Dan for alerting me to this book by mentioning it on his blog. And with thanks to the kind folks at Oxford University Press for the review copy!