Bruce M.
Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xvi +366.
Review of pp. 3–164: Part I
The
first 3 editions of this book appeared in 1964, 1968, 1992 (p. iv) and were
authored by Bruce M. Metzer of Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the
leading Textual Criticism scholars of his time. This is the fourth edition
co-authored by Bart D. Ehrman, a mentee of Bruce Metzer, to add “more important
bibliographical items along with expanded information” concerning the art and
science of Textual Criticism of the New Testament (pp. xiii, xv). For the last
41 years then, and 59 years now, this book has been a standard textbook of
introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
In the preface, Metzer wrote that
Textual Criticism is necessary because the autographs of the New Testament are
non-extant and the copies available to us have variations (p. xv). He also
acknowledged that the theories and practices of evaluating textual evidence
varied over the years, thus, producing this book under three parts: Material
for Textual Criticism (pp. 1–134); History of Textual Criticism (pp. 135–194);
and Application of Textual Criticism (pp. 195–343). (Pp. 345-9 contains the
bibliography). It has 9 chapters, and this review will cover the first 3
chapters (pp. 1-164) without any reference or comparison to the previous
editions.
Chapter 1 is about the Making of
Ancients Books (pp. 1–51). A brief description of how papyrus, parchment, and
ink are gathered to make the New Testament scroll with illustrations is
documented. The common size of the papyrus sheet was 15 by 9 inches, which is
slightly bigger than A4 size paper (p. 7). The scroll is about 35 feet long,
and books like the Gospel of Luke and Acts must be issued separately as each would
take up around 31-32 feet of papyrus roll (p. 12). Scrolls would be usually
written only on one (smooth) side but sometimes on both sides too. The book
form “codex” became popular by the second century, especially among the
Christians (p. 13), however, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are made up
of parchment, not papyrus (p. 15).
Manuscripts were written in majuscules
and minuscules, but minuscules became more convenient and outnumbered the
majuscule manuscripts by more than ten to one (p. 21). Sometimes, parchments
were re-scraped and reused called palimpsest (p. 21), unfortunately, biblical
parchments were also found to be used for other purpose (p. 22). Scriptures were written without spaces
between the words, but it was not difficult for the native readers especially
when they read out aloud as they normally were (p. 23). Scribes also employed a
system of contraction for some frequently occurring words like Jesus, God,
Christ, etc. Randel Harris estimated that it could cost 30,000 denarii to
produce a Bible, which only millionaires of our times can afford (p. 26).
Metzer (or Ehrman?) described the
practice of production to be lenient by the fourth century that a group of both
Christians and non-Christians were employed—perhaps, 6 hours a day for several
months (p. 29)— to write a copy while somebody read out aloud making more
opportunity for wrong words to be written (p. 25). However, in the proceeding
sections, on p. 30, the strict requirement of monks to write accurately is
documented. Some irrelevant remarks in the Irish language were observed in
ninth-century Latin manuscripts (p. 32) perhaps by the scribes according to the
author(s).
Over the years, the scribes or
theologians had developed “Help for readers,” in the form of sections,
divisions, or chapters as seen in Codex Vaticanus, the earliest one (p. 34).
Archbishop Andrew of the sixth century observed 72 chapters in the book of
Revelation. Eusebius attempted to harmonize the Gospel by locating a parallel
passage after making several divisions in each book, which is helpful even for
the present time (p. 39). Some manuscripts have images, illustrations, and
portraits. The author(s) documented the adaptation of punctuation, cola and
commata, neumes, and lectionary equipment in the paragraphs later. This chapter
is concluded by a section on Statistics of Greek Manuscripts of the New
Testament (p. 47 onwards): 310 majuscules and 2877 minuscules; 2432
lectionaries; including 6 portions of New Testament on broken pieces of
pottery; and 116 papyri, a total of 5735 (p. 50).
Chapter 2 is about the three Important
Witnesses to the text of the New Testament (pp. 52–134): Greek manuscripts,
ancient translations into another language, and quotations from church fathers.
p67 shows that text division was done even by the time of the second
century (p. 53). p52 proves
the existence of the Gospel of John long before the fourth century contrary to
the claims of some critics (p. 56). Some important manuscript like p75
has many lacunae and is in poor preservation (p. 58), However, Codex Sinaiticus
has the entire New Testament in it in a majuscule manuscript (p. 62).
Metzer and Ehrman also noted the
textual variations of some words in the manuscripts like the 666 of Revelation
that p115 has it as 616 (p.61). Codex Bezae has so many “remarkable
variations”; one of them is the addition of “twenty men could scarcely roll”
the stone before the tomb of Jesus in Luke 23:25 (p. 71). Acts is also
one-tenth longer in it. Some bilingual manuscripts (of Greek and Latin) like Dp
underwent correction (around 9 correctors) (p. 73). MS. 61 has “the three
heavenly witnesses” of 1Jn.5:7-8 (p. 88).
Augustine and Jerome complained that
some people were quick to translate the Greek manuscript into Latin (p. 95 n76,
p. 101). There are five different Syriac versions: Old Syriac, Peshitta, Philoxenia/
Harclean, Palestinian Syriac. A brief account of other versions of New
Testament manuscripts such as the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic,
Old Slavonic, and other less-known various versions are also noted. Most of the
Gothic manuscripts are palimpsest (p. 115). Armenian Version has more
manuscripts than any other early version except for the Latin Vulgate (p. 117).
Metzer observed that at least 30 Ethiopic manuscripts have the longer ending of
Gospel Mark (p. 120). Nubians had their Bible version but later, embraced Islam
(p. 123).
Regarding the importance of patristic
quotations, they suggested that when manuscripts differ, the one that differs
from the Vulgate or the Byzantine text must be more original (p. 127). In
footnote 123 (p. 127), the importance of memorizing scriptures in the early
churches is noted. The authors expressed the lack of studies in the patristic
sources by the scholars over the years (p. 130)
Chapter 3 is about the Precritical
period: the origin and dominance of Textus Receptus (pp. 137–164). Numbers of
copies of the Vulgate were printed before the printing of the first polyglot
Greek New Testament in 1514 though Greek Grammars were in print since 1476 (p. 137,
p. 138 n2). Erasmus’ version was hastily readied by 1516 drawing the criticism
of Scrivener, “most faulty book” (p. 143). His second edition was used by
Luther for German translation (p. 145). The authors briefly discussed the issue
of Comma Johanneum associating with Erasmus till the present time. Stephanus’
fourth edition of 1551 became the first Greek Text that had numbered verse,
while the third edition had become the standard text for several years (p. 150).
Edward Wells is recognized as the first
person to abandon Textus Receptus in publishing the Greek Text between 1709-19
(p. 155). John Owen is presented as an opponent of Textual Criticism in pp. 153
n38 and 154. Bengel, Wettstein, and Semler developed further the art and
science of Textual Criticism (p. 161).
The strength of this book lies in the
fact that it has been the standard textbook for textual criticism of the New
Testament for decades, also authored by none other than Bruce Metzer, however,
this edition being co-authored by Barth Ehrman, a skeptic and critic of
Christianity makes one suspicious. This book treats the text of the New
Testament as any ancient manuscript; they do not present it to be sacred or divine
at all— neither in the text nor in the preface or the footnotes. The authors
disdain Textus Receptus and its adherents. Sometimes, the method of
transcription is put in a bad light by emphasizing the carelessness or the
mistakes of the scribes.
