kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Text criticism and why I want to be a scholar

I’m reading through David Alan Black‘s New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide for my Exegetical Methods class. It’s a handy little book that just goes through the basics of the field in a quite accessible way. To my surprise, when I joked to my wife that since I was going to go do the dishes, would she read the book for me . . . she actually started reading it! I must inform you that my wife is a dietitian, far removed from heavy theological debates, and she normally steers clear of in-depth geeky Bible stuff. It did get us into an interesting conversation, though, about what all this stuff means for the average Bible reader. If scholars debate about this textual criticism stuff, how’s the non-specialist supposed to know what to do with it? How are they supposed to trust what they read in the Bible?

For my readers who don’t know, “textual criticism” is the study of (you got it) texts of the NT (or of any historical document, for that matter). It’s the search to figure out what the actual original words were for Paul’s letters or the Gospels, for example. That said, you should know that scholars are fairly certain about the wording of the vast majority of the NT. Furthermore, the vast majority of the inconsistencies in manuscripts of the NT are either easy to figure out or rather innocuous to matters of faith (like a shift in word order: Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus–it’s interesting, but doesn’t make to much difference for the person of faith today). I assured my wife that she doesn’t have to worry too much about not being able to read the Bible on her own. I think an average reader could get by with reading good introductions to biblical books in informed study Bibles, taking a look at a solid Bible dictionary for some lingering questions, even reading accessible commentaries if they want to go in depth (I recommend the Believers Church Bible Commentary series in that regard), and of course, learning from teachers who have done the dirty work for them. As for the text issues, I told her that a lot of the more significant textual discrepancies, the ones the nitty gritty scholars aren’t sure about, will be noted in the footnotes of the Bible or even bracketed off as a warning to readers.

Basically, I tried to convince her that you don’t have to be a scholar to understand the Bible (that would be a very cruel theological joke). She asked the obvious question: So, then, why are you doing this? Meaning: why am I interested in pursuing scholarship, if I’m standing there downplaying the importance to scholarly debates. It’s a fundamental vocational question, and a good one. My answer, I think, is that the scholarly debates are not irrelevant, they just need to be distilled to reach the non-Bible-geeks like my wife. I want to be one of those people who wrestles with the hard stuff, because I have an acquired palate and passion for it, and then makes the nitty gritty more accessible for those who aren’t interested in spending their lives buried in books and libraries and heady classroom discussions (not to mention the reading of biblioblogs!). In my career, while I would like to do some scholarly pushing and pulling in more technical debates, I think my primary goal is to be an educator and communicator. I’m reminded of the need for that by all the people closest to me who ask me these very good questions.

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

4 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  April 2, 2007  /  Posted in: books, textual criticism, vocation
« Previous post
Next post »
  • slaveofone

    It’s good to say that basic truths are not beyond the grasp of the simple, naive, or un-educated…

    But I think it’s also important to point out how extremely important and valuable scholarship is. The Old and New Testaments are products of a culture, world-view, etc that is, for most people, a terra incognita. People inevitably must read their own culture, values, and present-day concepts into the text since they are so detached from it. But naiveté and impressionism are dangerous roads to take.

    Also, historically speaking, there is a trickle-down effect whereby the educated elite direct the future currents of the artistic, and the artistic disseminate that into the popular and folkloric. So in a very real sense, scholars and philosophers have tremendous power to shape society and the future.

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks, Dave. That’s helpful. I don’t want to come off sounding anti-intellectual, brushing aside the important work that I want to do as a scholar. On the other hand, I don’t want to rip the Bible out of the hands of regular folk. It’s a delicate balance.

    I agree that scholars wield tremendous power, which can be dangerous. Scholars obviously have bad ideas as well as the non-scholars, and that’s why I want be “in” on the scholarly conversation to be able to sift through all dirt and find the gold. That reminds me of one of my favorite sayings in the Mishnah:

    “There are four traits among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sifter. A sponge—because he sponges everything up; a funnel—because he takes in on one side and lets out on the other; a strainer—for he lets out the wine and keeps in the lees; and a sifter—for he lets out the flour and keeps in the finest flour.” ~m. Abot 5:15 (Neusner’s translation – forgive the lack of gender inclusive language)

    I want to be that sifter, who then brings the best of what’s left to those who don’t have the opportunity for this education.

  • J. Matthew Barnes

    Pat,

    I think that you are highlighting an important problem here. I like to couch the debate like this: who is our audience as biblical scholars: the Church or each other? It seems to me that you are arguing a little of both, i.e. one engages in academic debate and then attempts to make it applicable to the general pew-sitter.

    I agree. The unfortunate thing is that scholars who attempt to keep contact with the Church are sometimes looked down upon by the Academy (like Fee, Moo, almost any “traditionalist,” and even NT Wright to some extent). This is really sad to me. It would be as if research doctors simply wrote about treatment plans in journals but never shared them with practicing doctors and their patients. What purpose would the research doctors serve then?

    The only bridges now between the Church and the Academy are the few pastors and leaders who know the Bible-geek jargon well enough and find it useful week in and week out and the few scholars who purposefully make “hardcore” scholarship somewhat applicable.

    This situation could get better though…it seems like there is a new crop of us that are more interested in communicating with the Church than one another. Lets hope so.

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks, Matt. You’re right. I do want to do both. Maybe I want to be a less famous version of NT Wright, but without all the speaking engagements all over the world and without being a bishop. And though he isn’t a NT scholar, Brueggemann is another good example. I get the feeling that he is well-respected in the Academy of biblical scholars (he was the president of SBL after all).

    In response to your doctor analogy, I can see where a NT scholar with a more secular perspective may not appreciate it. Not all non-faith-based scholars only want to talk to themselves, of course. Many of them want to disseminate the information to the masses, but they don’t define the masses as only the church. Look at Ehrman, Pagels, and King. Also Borg, Crossan, etc. Some of them direct their popularized scholarship to the liberal church, but others direct it to society in general, like Berlinerblau and his article in the Chronicle (he also has a book called The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously). I also appreciate it when I see biblical and religious scholars make it onto The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

    I would also like to interact with nonbelievers. So I guess you could say that I’m interested in all three conversations: with the scholars, with the church, and with those outside the church (be they part of other religions or not part of any particular faith). That’s a lot to take on! :)