Tampering with the Text: Was the New Testament Text Changed Along the Way? (part 2)...Continued from page 1

$(document).ready(function() {
$("#SharePanel114202").sharePanel({ "sharebuttons": [{ "cssclass": "share_more", "tooltip": "More", "action": "#", "addWinOpen": "false", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_email", "tooltip": "Email this", "action": "%URLURL%emailafriend/", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_print", "tooltip": "Print this", "action": "%URLURL%print/", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_discuss", "tooltip": "Discuss this", "action": "", "addWinOpen": "false", "link": "%URLURL%#articleCommentList" },{ "cssclass": "share_facebook", "tooltip": "Share on Facebook", "action": "http://facebook.com/sharer.php?u=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_twitter", "tooltip": "Share on Twitter", "action": "http://twitter.com/home?status=Reading%20From%20@christianitycom%20%PAGETITLE%%20%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_delicious", "tooltip": "Share on Delicious", "action": "http://del.icio.us/post?url=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_digg", "tooltip": "Share on Digg", "action": "http://digg.com/submit?url=%ENCODEURL%&title=%PAGETITLE%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_stumbleupon", "tooltip": "Share on StumbleUpon", "action": "http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=%ENCODEURL%&title=%PAGETITLE%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_reddit", "tooltip": "Share on Reddit", "action": "http://reddit.com/submit?url=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_mixx", "tooltip": "Share on Mixx", "action": "http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_technorati", "tooltip": "Share on Technorati", "action": "http://www.technorati.com/faves?add=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_googlebuzz", "tooltip": "Share on Google Buzz", "action": "http://www.google.com/reader/link?url=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_yahoobuzz", "tooltip": "Share on Yahoo! Buzz", "action": "http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_typepad", "tooltip": "Share on Typepad", "action": "http://www.typepad.com/services/quickpost/post?v=2&qp_show=ac&qp_title=%PAGETITLE%&qp_href=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" },{ "cssclass": "share_livejournal", "tooltip": "Share on Livejournal", "action": "http://www.livejournal.com/update.bml?event=%3Ca%20href%3D%22%ENCODEURL%%22%3E%PAGETITLE%%3C%2Fa%3E", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" }, { "cssclass": "share_blogger", "tooltip": "Share on Blogger", "action": "http://www.blogger.com/blog_this.pyra?t=&u=%ENCODEURL%", "addWinOpen": "true", "link": "" }] });
});
A second example is Mark 16:9-20, known as the long ending of Mark.49 Most modern English translations bracket off this portion of the text and note that two of our earliest manuscripts of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), do not contain the long ending. Moreover, the long ending was unknown in a number of early versions (including a number of Latin, Syriac, and Armenian manuscripts) and was not mentioned by prominent Greek fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. There is also the problem of non-Markan vocabulary in the long ending, as well as the awkward transition between 16:8 and 16:9. In short, most scholars agree that the long ending of Mark was not original to his Gospel. So, what is the impact of this particular variant? There is no doubt this textual change is "significant" both in regard to its scope (twelve verses) and also its content (resurrection, drinking poison, picking up snakes). But, since we can clearly see that these verses are an addition, they bear no impact on our ability to recover the original text of Mark. There may be residual questions regarding why Mark would end his Gospel in verse 8 (which we cannot enter into here), but the textual evidence is quite clear that he did not write verses 9-20.50
Theologically Motivated Changes
There has been a long-standing discussion in the world of textual criticism concerning the degree to which scribes intentionally altered passages of the New Testament to better conform to their own theological preferences. Ever since the well-known statement from Westcott and Hort that "there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes,"51 there has been a steady chorus of scholars intending to show the opposite to be the case. The idea of theologically motivated scribal changes can be traced back to Kirsopp Lake and J. Rendel Harris and more recently to scholars like Eldon J. Epp and his well-known book The Theological Tendency of Codex Cantabrigiensis in Acts.52 Ehrman joins this chorus in a number of his recent books, but most notably The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, where he argues that scribes in the early church were not merely disinterested copyists who mechanically transmitted the text in front of them, but, in one sense, continued "writing" the New Testament text by changing it to adapt to the theological and social challenges of the day.53 Thus, argues Ehrman, these scribal changes need to be understood within the context of the early church battles over heresy and orthodoxy—battles that not only affected the development of the New Testament canon but affected the development of the New Testament text itself.
Because these theologically motivated changes can affect the meaning of a passage (though just how much is in doubt), they are rightly considered to be "significant" textual variants. A few examples may be helpful. In Luke 2:33, after Simeon blesses the baby Jesus, we read, "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him." However, a number of later manuscripts read, "And Joseph and his mother marveled at what was said about him" (K X Δ Θ Π Ψ). Ehrman argues that this scribal change is designed to bolster the doctrine of the virgin birth—an issue that was often challenged by some heretical groups like the Ebionites—by making sure no one can (mis)use this passage to argue that Jesus had a human father.54 A second example comes from 1 Timothy 3:16 which, speaking of Christ, declares, "He was manifested in the flesh." However, other manuscripts show a scribal change which then makes the verse declare, "God was manifested in the flesh" (אe A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ). Ehrman again argues that this scribal change was intentional and designed to state the divinity of Christ in more explicit terms.55 In the midst of all the Christological debates in early Christianity, scribes may have wanted to make sure this verse expressly affirmed that Christ was God come in the flesh. A third example is found in John 19:40 where Jesus' body is being prepared for burial. We are told there that "they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths." But the fifth-century codex Alexandrinus (A) reads, "So they took the body of God and bound it in linen cloths." This very obvious Christological change again appears to have been introduced for theological reasons—perhaps to keep Docetists from arguing that since Jesus was God he could not have had a real flesh-and-blood body.56