The Early Text of the New Testament: Upcoming Release of Note

Just last week I mentioned ten upcoming books I will be reading, and already I’ve discovered one glaring omission from that list. Interest in early NT manuscripts is on the rise as a result of recent rumors about recent discoveries. Without a doubt, The Early Text of the New Testament, edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger, will be a great contribution to the field when it is published in May.

Be sure to check the link to the book, as it provides a good deal of information under the various tabs. Here is the publisher’s description, followed by the table of contents:

The Early Text of the New Testament aims to examine and assess from our earliest extant sources the most primitive state of the New Testament text now known. What sort of changes did scribes make to the text? What is the quality of the text now at our disposal? What can we learn about the nature of textual transmission in the earliest centuries? In addition to exploring the textual and scribal culture of early Christianity, this volume explores the textual evidence for all the sections of the New Testament. It also examines the evidence from the earliest translations of New Testament writings and the citations or allusions to New Testament texts in other early Christian writers.

Table of Contents

Introduction: In Search of the Earliest Text of the New Testament , Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger

I. The Textual and Scribal Culture of Early Christianity

1. The Book Trade in the Roman Empire , Harry Y. Gamble

2. Indicators of Catholicity in Early Gospel Manuscripts , Scott Charlesworth

3. Towards a Sociology of Reading in Early Christianity , Larry Hurtado

4. Early Christian Attitudes towards the Reproduction of Texts , Michael J. Kruger

II. The Manuscript Tradition

5. The Early Text of Matthew , Tommy Wasserman

6. The Early Text of Mark , Peter Head

7. The Early Text of Luke , Juan Hernandez

8. The Early Text of John , Juan Chapa

9. The Early Text of Acts , Christopher Tuckett

10. The Early Text of Paul (and Hebrews) , James R. Royse

11. The Early Text of the Catholic Epistles , J. K. Elliott

12. The Early Text of Revelation , Tobias Nicklas

13. Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together: Evaluating Agreements between Two or More Early Versions , Peter Williams

III. Early Citation/Use of New Testament Writings

14. In These Very Words: Methods and Standards of Literary Borrowing in the Second Century , Charles E. Hill

15. The Text of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers , Paul Foster

16. Marcion and the Early Text of the New Testament , Dieter T. Roth

17. Justin’s Text of the Gospels. Another Look at the Citations in 1 Apol. 15.1-8 , Joseph Verheyden

18. Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Greek Text of the Gospels , Tjitze Baarda

19. Early Apocryphal Gospels and the New Testament Text , Stanley Porter

20. Irenaeus’s Text of the Gospels in Adversus haereses , Jeffrey Bingham and Billy R. Todd, Jr.

21. Clement of Alexandria’s Gospel Citations , Carl Cosaert

Should be great!

 

Lost Texts of Early Christianity: A Wish List

So many works from early Christianity have been lost, leaving more questions than answers. Which lost texts would most intrigue you if they were to be discovered? For the sake of discussion, include only texts for which there is some decent evidence of their existence or texts that are extant only in fragmentary form. Here is my “off-the-top-of-my-head” list, counting down to #1, but I’m sure I could revise this after being reminded of other significant candidates:

10. The entire Gospel of Peter. This is mainly for selfish reasons, as I wrote my dissertation on the extant portion of this text. I’d be curious to discover if the characteristics I identified in its Passion and resurrection narratives existed in the rest of it. It would also be interesting to see if, in fact, this gospel had a birth narrative, something that might be indicated by Origen’s reference to its claim that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage.

9. The entire Egerton Gospel. Only a fragment of this work exists, but it is very early. Furthermore, the extant portion indicates a very curious relationship to the NT gospels.

8. The “real” Epistle to the Laodiceans. There does exist a much later epistle by this name, but it is clearly not the one mentioned in Col 4:16. This verse has a curious reference to a letter “from Laodicea,” though English translations differ on how the expression is rendered. The best understanding is that reference is being made to a letter purportedly from Paul, written to the church in Laodicea. Even if this is pseudonymous, I’d love to see it.

7. Marcion’s Gospel. This would shed light on Marcion’s theology in addition to his knowledge of gospel traditions and/or the NT gospels.

6. The Gospel of the Hebrews. The question of how many Jewish-Christian gospels existed is thorny, but there is relatively reliable evidence that one of them was known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Hegessipus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were familiar with it, but we know very little about its contents.

5. The letters of recommendation belonging to Paul’s Corinthian rivals. Paul indicates in 2 Cor 3 that his rivals possess “letters of recommendation,” probably as a means of showing their connection to people of authority. Martin Hengel has suggested that the letters might have been from Peter and/or his associates. In any case, these letters would be useful for understanding more about Paul’s rivals in Corinth and their possible connection to other leading Christian figures.

4. The Signs Gospel. There are good reasons to think that the author of John might have used a written source, commonly called the Signs Gospel, which was comprised mainly of miracles stories and possibly even a Passion Narrative.

3. Papias’ Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. So many tantalizing questions arise from the extant quotations of this work: What did Papias believe about the authorship of the gospels? From whom did he get this info? Who were the “elders”? What was the relationship between written and oral traditions about Jesus at the time? Which gospels did Papias know? Comprising five books, this surely must have been a work of significant size.

2. The “real” First Corinthians. It seems clear from 1 Cor 5:9-11 that Paul had written a previous letter to the Corinthian church, one BEFORE First Corinthians. This would add to our understanding of 1 & 2 Corinthians and perhaps show how the situation unfolded in this community.

1. Q. This one is controversial, in the sense that some doubt whether anything like Q even existed and, if so, whether it was a written source. I tend to think there was a written sayings source used by both Matthew and Luke. I’d love to see a copy, though…

 

Ten Upcoming Books I Will Be Reading

My list of books to read is growing faster than I can keep up, but that doesn’t stop me from continuously adding more. I know that there are many upcoming titles that I’m probably forgetting, but below are 10 that are scheduled for publication in 2012 (or thereabouts) and relate to early Christianity (follow the links for further information on each). And because I never stop reading, tell me which other books in this area of study are you most looking forward to…

Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church - Markus Bockmuehl (Baker Academic, November)

The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive Sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment – Ronald Sider (Baker Academic, July)

Folly to Gentiles: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in the Faith of the First Christians – Jeffrey Peterson (Baker Academic, November)

Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology. Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel – Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston, eds. (Mohr Siebeck, February)

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth – Bart D. Ehrman (HarperOne, March)

Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity – Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds. (T & T Clark, August)

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture: The Role of the Old Testament in the Early Christian Interpretations of Jesus’ Resurrection – Lidija Novakovic (T & T Clark, November)

Contested Spaces: Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and the New Testament – David L. Balch and Annette Weissenrieder, eds (Mohr Siebeck, March)

Paul and the Faithfulness of God – N. T. Wright (Fortress,  ??? might not appear until 2013)

A Contested Identity: Volume 3 of Christianity in the Making – James D. G. Dunn (Eerdmans, ? 2013 or 2014?)

 

Was the Apostle Peter a Source for Mark’s Gospel? (Part 3)

In my first two posts (Part 1 and Part 2) I discussed the external indicators that Mark’s gospel was written by John Mark, whose mentor was the apostle Peter. I’ll now consider possible internal evidence pointing in this direction, before concluding this series with some relevant historical questions.

• Peter is the first and last named disciple in Mark (1:16; 16:7).

• Peter is mentioned more than any other disciple in Mark.

• Peter appears in some of the most important scenes in Mark: the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20), the confession of Jesus as Messiah (8:27-30), the transfiguration (9:2-8), the prayer in Gethsemane (14:32-42), and in the concluding scene alluding to future appearances of Jesus (16:7).

• Of the four gospels, Mark has the highest percentage of references to boats, the Sea of Galilee, and fishing. Peter apparently was a fisherman who worked on the Sea of Galilee (1:16).

• There is the curious story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:29-31), which seems to include personal details related to Peter.

The (John) Mark of the NT was apparently from Judea and was an early Christian missionary worker who accompanied both Peter and Paul at various points during his life. If this is the author of the Gospel of Mark, and he wrote his gospel from Rome sometime in the decade after Peter’s death, then we have very good explanations for the following historical questions:

1) Why does Mark have a Semitic style? Mark’s gospel appears to have been written by someone whose native language was not Greek, but more likely Aramaic. This is explainable if the author is a Palestinian Jew, as Mark apparently was. This fits with the external evidence that the John Mark of the NT wrote this gospel.

2) Why are there several Latin loanwords in Mark? There are more Latin words in Mark than in any other gospel. This suggests that it may have been written in a Roman environment. This fits with the external evidence that Mark wrote from Rome.

3) Why does Peter play such a significant role in this gospel? Peter plays an important role in this gospel because of the simple fact that he was one of the main sources used in its composition. This fits with the external testimony of the early church that Peter was Mark’s source.

4) Why was Mark the main source used by both Matthew and Luke? Consider two answers to this question: 1) Mark was written by an anonymous Gentile; or 2) Mark was written by someone known to have been a student of Peter’s, the leading apostolic figure. Luke tells us in his prologue that he knows of “many” gospels (Luke 1:1-4). Since there is no good reason to doubt his claim, we’re left to wonder why his most important source appears to have been Mark. This question is even more pressing if Luke has no beliefs about the authorship of Mark.

It is interesting that every time Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is also mentioned (Col 4:10, 14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phm 24). The last of these is clearly historical, while it’s possible that the former two are later traditions. It seems, then, that there were two men, named Mark and Luke, who knew each other and were connected to people in the leadership of the early Christian communities. All of this fits with the external evidence that the second gospel was known to carry the apostolic authority of Peter and was written by Mark.

Conclusions:

• It is highly likely that someone named “Mark” wrote the gospel bearing this name. There is no good reason to explain why this name would become attached to this text if its author was not someone with this name. By far, the best candidate for this is the Mark mentioned in the NT. Therefore, I conclude that this is the author of the gospel bearing his name.

• It is only slightly less likely that Peter was a source for Mark. All of the internal and external evidence points in the direction of Peter being behind this gospel. The only significant argument against this is that Peter is often portrayed in a negative light in Mark. But this is true of the other disciples as well. It is better to understand Peter’s portrayal in Mark as being that of the prototypical disciple, someone who does not correctly perceive Jesus from a pre-Easter perspective. In fact, historically speaking, this seems to be highly probable: Peter (and the other disciples) often doubted Jesus messianic status during his earthly ministry. It was only after their Easter experiences that they came to view him more confidently in that way. Therefore, I find it more likely than not that Peter was one of the main sources used by the author of Mark.

What are your thoughts? Are there compelling reasons to doubt either Mark as the author, or Peter as his source?

Is This a Photo of the Earliest NT Manuscript?

If there is anywhere in the world that one can find bad information, it’s the internet. Having said that, I noticed that someone is purporting to have a photograph of the earliest NT manuscript, the one Daniel Wallace has mentioned in recent weeks (see here and here). The manuscript is allegedly from Mark 5:15-18 and the photo, along with a discussion of it, is posted here.  This is the photo:

 

I’m skeptical but I suppose anything’s possible. Any thoughts from those more knowledgeable would be much appreciated!

 

Was the Apostle Peter a Source for Mark’s Gospel? (Part 2)

In my previous post on this topic, I considered the testimony of Papias and his reference to the earlier teaching of “the elder,” who taught that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and thus incorporated the apostle’s teaching when penning the Gospel of Mark. Now I will briefly survey the other early evidence that links Peter to Mark in one way or another. This is not to assume the historical veracity of any or all of these, but simply to point to the widespread early tradition connecting these two figures.

• Acts 12:12. Upon fleeing prison, Peter goes to the house of Mark’s mother.
• 1 Peter 5:13. Mark is identified as Peter’s “son,” which is likely intended to portray a sort of teacher-student relationship.
• Justin Martyr, Dial. 106.3. It is not entirely clear what Justin’s meaning is here, but the most likely one is that he is identifying the Gospel of Mark as the memoirs of Peter.
• Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1.  Mark is called “the disciple and interpreter of Peter,” who “also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”
• Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.6-7). Clement indicates that Mark had followed Peter for a long time before writing his gospel from Rome. He states that this information derives from those who were “elders from the beginning.”
• Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5). He writes that “while that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was…”

The external evidence from the first 150 years after Mark was written is consistent–this gospel was written by someone connected to the apostle Peter. Furthermore, there are other sources indicating an association between the two men, in contexts not discussing the composition of Mark’s gospel.

In my next post, we will look at possible internal indicators pointing toward Peter as a source for Mark’s gospel.

Part 3

Why Paul Rarely Used Jesus Traditions: Hengel’s Suggestion

It’s well known that Paul rarely makes explicit reference to the words and deeds of Jesus. Some have suggested that this indicates ignorance on Paul’s part; he simply wasn’t aware of such traditions. Others have pointed to the occasional nature of Paul’s letters as a reason. I wouldn’t want to exclude entirely either of these options, but I’ll throw into the mix an intriguing proposal made by Martin Hengel.

His basic line of thought is this:

1) As one of the original disciples of Jesus, Peter was among the leading preservers of the early traditions about Jesus.

2) Peter and his messengers were known to some of the Pauline churches and, in fact, Peter was highly esteemed by some of those in Pauline communities (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22).

3) In the aftermath of the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11-14), a severe rift arose between Peter and Paul, a division that would have been known in the Pauline churches.

4) Paul shied away from using Jesus traditions because that was Peter’s domain and possibly one of the characteristics that marked his status as an early Christian missionary and leader.

This is as close to a summary statement that I can find from Hengel:

If Paul presents himself as the successful “Apostle to the Gentiles,” who offered himself up to the nations when he was sent forth, Peter could appear as the authoritative disciple of Jesus and the first leader of the original community in Jerusalem, who was head and shoulders above Paul with respect to the fullness of his traditions about Jesus . As a missionary, he also would have seen, as quite important, that he would deliver the “words and deeds” of Jesus, the Messiah and the Son of God, which he himself had experienced, to his Jewish and his Gentile hearers. It is possible that the hesitancy of the apostle to the Gentiles to explicitly use the traditions about Jesus has to do with this deficiency of the former persecutor. As a former enemy of Jesus, Paul knew him “only in a fleshly manner” (or, better said, “mistakenly” knew him); he had no personal experiences with him before Easter, though Peter by contrast had known him in manifold ways. (Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle, 75)

I think this is possible, though I’d love to hear more reactions from others. What do you think? Could this be one of the factors accounting for Paul’s general lack in this area?

Was the Apostle Peter a Source for Mark’s Gospel? (Part 1)

The earliest testimony about the origins of Mark’s gospel is indeed quite early. Here is the relevant excerpt preserved by Eusebius:

In [Papias'] writing he also passes along other accounts of the sayings of the Lord belonging to Aristion, who has been mentioned above, and the traditions of John the Elder, to which we refer those interested. For our present purpose we must add to his statements already quoted above a tradition concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, that has been set forth in these words:

“And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving and ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or to make any false statement in them.’” (Eusebius, Church History 3.39; translation of Michael W. Holmes)

The first item to sort out is the actual origin of this information. Eusebius is quoting the written words of Papias. However, Papias has written what “the elder” used to say, apparently at an earlier point in Papias’ life. Therefore, the actual source of this tradition is either John the Elder or Aristion (on a side note, it’s important to mention that Papias distinguishes between John the Elder and John the son of Zebedee; they are two different people).

What is the likely date of this information? It is notoriously difficult to assign a date to Papias any more specific than the first half of the second century. Eusebius himself seems to place Papias during Trajan’s rule (98-117 C.E.). However, we know that Papias was acquainted with several of the later NT books – 1 John, 1 Peter, Revelation. Martin Hengel concludes that Papias’ work cannot be placed any later than Hadrian’s reign (117-138 C.E.). Harnack was among those who dated it later (ca. 150), yet that seems improbable in light of the fact that Irenaeus (ca. 180) refers to Papias as a “man of old” (ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ – i.e., “man of the early period of the church” in Against Heresies 5.33.4). Let us say, then, that Papias wrote ca. 110-130 C.E. This still leaves us with the question of when he obtained the tradition from the elder.

Richard Bauckham has argued that the period to which Papias is referring for this tradition is ca. 80-90. Emphasizing the distinction between the time at which Papias wrote and the time about which he wrote, Bauckham is somewhat convincing on this point (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 12-21). However, a later date is just as likely. Therefore, the most probable range of dates is 90-120 C.E.

In conclusion, then, there is testimony from an early Christian leader, coming 20-50 years after Mark’s composition,  that it was written by an associate of Peter, and that much of the content of this gospel derives from Peter himself.

To be continued…

Part 2

Part 3

Interview with Larry Hurtado

Larry Hurtado has brought attention to him being interviewed by John Martens, and the audio can be found here. At over 48 minutes, it covers a wide range of topics, including Hurtado’s reasons for entering the academic world, his interest in early Christian artifacts and Christ devotion, the state of affairs in academia, and much more. I always enjoy hearing interviews like this.

Thanks to both Larry and John for this resource!

More on the Early Manuscript of Mark

Dan Wallace has posted a bit more on the potential discovery of a first-century manuscript fragment of the Gospel of Mark:

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!