In this interview Craig A. Evans discusses ancient New Testament manuscripts and textual criticism. (HT)
Bibliology, Craig A. Evans, Scripture, Textual Criticism
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
the archives near Emmaus 
I liked that! I especially liked Evans’ discussion on the missing Pslams verse, the Samuel Paragraph, and then his extended discussion on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran (this gives a whole new meaning to the “Preservation” argument that so many misguided folk use to forward their argument for KJV onlyism 😉 ). Good stuff, thanks for sharing the vid.
I got bored after 8 minutes…. His apologetic “explaining away” deterred his more valuable insights about the actual textual history of various passages (e.g. “Well now that we admitted the error, we must remember that this error changes nothing because it’s principle is found elsewhere….)…. Which basically says “these verses aren’t original but what they said really wasn’t that original either.” One gets the sense that his apologetic Bible is one that I could take out entire books and chapters and verses out of without him blinking an eye because he could just find that principle “elsewhere.”
(I’m not a “whole text” kind of guy…rather I am very Derridean/Bultmannian here…. the loss of the authenticity of some verses of the Bible is not some evidence of an “exception to the rule” but the error (e.g. John 8, John 5:7) is the truth of the entire Bible…. Faith here is the only option.)
@Bobby: You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
@Joel: It’s unfortunate that you were bored. Apparently you ignored all the interesting insights from DSS studies that Evans covered amongst other things. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by his “Apologetic Bible”. Have you ever read anything by Evans? He is one of the most respected historians of the world of Jesus, the disciples, and Qumran.
Yeah, I went back and watched the rest. It definitely got better (his insights about the Qumran are intriguing)….
And I have not read anything by Craig Evans. I am not doubting his scholarship or knowledge…
My critique about his rhetoric though, I am still curious what your thoughts are Brian (especially considering your paper on Gademer and Derrida)….
Don’t you think the undertones of Evans’ apologetic which claims meaning from a Biblical Text found elsewhere outside of the omitted text? I guess what I am getting at is I am interested in Evans’ work as a textual critic…. What was shoddy was his meandering from focusing on what the manuscripts said into protecting the Word of God which i don’t really necessary. An analogy, although much more of an extreme case would be Richard Dawkins the scientist talking about religion/faith as if he were an expert.
@Joel: I guess I’m not sure what motivation would be needed to critique a side observation that he has the right to make. As a reader of Derrida I know that interviews are often artificial when they seem natural. My assumption is that the interviewer likely had asked him something about how 1 Jn 5.7 impacts the doctrine of the Trinity and he answered it though the recorded interview did not include as detailed a question.
Evans has every right to challenge a view he sees as errant, especially when some have used 1 Jn 5.7 as if it was inserted and then influenced the development of the doctrine which is contrary to history. Rather, the doctrine developed and this passage was inserted. That is the context of the answer he gave and he is correct to note this.
Yeah, if what you say is true about the interviewer (it would explain a bit of the awkwardness), then my qualms are definitely for naught….
But I guess, and perhaps this gets to an entirely new issue which you may not want to go down….
But aren’t such discoveries of the flimsiness of such verses and chapters within the textual history screaming at us to not rest our certainty in canon as so many Christians do? I guess it amazes me to watch some people go and say “yes this verse shouldn’t be in the Bible, but…. it’s not so bad.”
And while I agree they don’t belong in the Bible…. why are we so quick to only make the verses that weren’t originally there meaningless (because the meaning that was initially claimed by the verse can be found in other parts of the Bible)….
Perhaps this is just my belief the Bible as infallible (and not inerrant) trying to suggest there is a bigger point withall this textual criticism here than simply a few verses… (Note: I am can’t stand Ehrman’s work, but it seems the only people who seem to get frustrated at Ehrman (as it seems Evans is hinting at) are the one’s who base their Christianity on an kind of rationalism justified in the inerrency of the Word)…
I hope you get my point, and knowing the history of your blog, I am sure you have covered the issue elsewhere, so even links will do at this point….
And please note Brian, I am a big fan…..
Wow, this was a very good interview.
@Joel: Thanks for the kind words!
You are correct that textual problems should lead us to avoid a type of biblicism that builds big doctrines on key words or sentences. That being said, I think canon is important. When we formulate doctrine through canon we avoid the error that you are noting. We avoid building a doctrine on an obscure passage or even one voice within Scripture.
For instance, let’s take a subject from our background: 1 Cor 11 and the hair/veil issue. It is absurd to build a huge doctrine on such an obscure passage. I don’t know of any major textual variants there, but if there was that would add to my concern when people take on passage and make it the key to a full blown doctrine.
Evans is saying this very thing. He is saying 1 Jn 5.7 is an interesting MSS issue, but it is not relevant to the formation of a doctrine because doctrine comes from more than one source.
Also, like you, Evans and myself prefer infallible rather than inerrant.
I hope I’m following. If it seems I missing the point feel free to clarify.