In this week's Religion Bookline from Publishers Weekly (scroll down, look for pink text) they've got a preview of an upcoming review of a new title by Bart D. Ehrman. The book is titled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why. The title is scheduled for release in November.

The "sneak peek" is:

In the absence of any original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, how can we be sure that we're getting the intended words and meaning? Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill, has devoted his life to the study of such questions and here offers an engaging and fascinating look at the way scholars try to answer them. Part memoir, part history, and part critical study, he traces the development of the academic discipline called textual criticism, which uses external and internal evidence to evaluate and compare ancient manuscripts in order to find the best readings. Ehrman points out that scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have. His absorbing story, fresh and lively prose, and seasoned insights into the challenges of recreating the texts of the New Testament ensure that readers might never read the Gospels or Paul's letters the same way again. (Nov.)

Sounds like fun reading, no? I'm curious to know what is meant by " ... scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have." Surely scribes didn't copy perfectly, they made numerous inadvertent (and mostly inconsequential) errors. But is the contention that scribes willfully and purposely altered just about anything they produced?

Update (2006-01-12): I've been meaning to get back to this for awhile. Thanks to Pat for the comment below. I've since read comments (sorry, don't recall from where) that Ehrman wanted a different title for the book. Apparently the title sensationalizes a bit, though Ehrman seems to be staking out for himself a position of more frequent and intentional MS changes. Other textual critics I've read don't seem to take a similar line on the frequency of intentional changes. Or is my (admittedly unresearched) conception of Ehrman's position a result of the ensationalism and marketing hype and not reflective of his actual position?

For those anxiously anticipating the SBL CARG session on biblioblogging, I've updated my paper title/abstract. Here are the details:

Biblioblog Problems and Solutions: PastoralEpistles.com as a Sandbox

Biblioblogs have come to serve a valuable role in the academic community: they disseminate information throughout the academy while serving to humanize their authors. But the information produced by bibliobloggers, while searchable via Google and able to be displayed upon request, is locked in an environment that stores content as a sort of lowest common denominator. Salient bits of information, ranging from discussions of particular Biblical passages to impromptu book reviews, are unable to be easily retrieved unless one happens to fortuitously stumble upon them. Most biblioblog content is first-rate, but the blogging software that typically generates and archives the content could be better.

This paper further defines these “lowest common denominator” problems and explores methodology used by PastoralEpistles.com to address them.

As usual, this may change somewhat but as the bulk of the paper has been written and (lightly) revised already, I don't see much change happening with the abstract.

For more information, see Jim Davila's abstract, a previous post from me and Mark Goodacre's roundup of session information.

Hi folks.

It's been a few days since I've blogged. Don't worry, I'm still here. I've just been sucked up by an incredibly interesting (and complex) project for Logos that you're bound to hear (and see!) more about at the SBL annual meeting in Philadelphia. When I get sucked into projects like this, things tend to go quiet. I've also been spending more time outside of Logos with a special certain someone (yes, I'm talking about Amy). And there's also that paper for the SBL CARG Biblioblogger session that's just about 'in the can'. That all amounts to less bloggin' time for Rico.

But I have been reading a bit. Most of it has to do with scribal practices, as I've discussed in earlier posts (here and here). Here are some citations if you're interested.

The Bible in Modern Scholarship: Papers read at the 100th meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Abingdon Press, 1965. Articles read include:

• Aland, Kurt. The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research. pp. 325-346.
• Metzger, Bruce M. Recent Contributions to the Study of the Ancient Versions of the New Testament. pp. 347-369.
• Colwell, Ernest Cadman. Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text. pp. 370-389.

New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Zondervan, 1974. Articles read include:

• Fee, Gordon. P⁷⁵, P⁶⁶ and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria. pp. 19-45.
• There are other articles in here I'd like to read but haven't read yet. These include:
• Longenecker, Richard N. Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles. pp. 281-297.
• Burdic, Donald W. Οἰδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles. pp. 344-356.
• On a side note: the copy of the book that I procured via AbeBooks.com had the name "Daniel B. Wallace" handwritten on the inside, no purchase date. Stuff like that makes a guy wonder ...

These are all cool essays, but they're dense -- I need to read through them again to really grok the content. In short, I'm learning a lot about inadvertent scribal errors, but not a whole lot about the psychology or process behind intentional changes to the text. Colwell and Fee both treat P⁷⁵ and P⁶⁶, so one can see how two different people examined the same papryi. Read Colwell first as Fee cites him directly in spots.

I've also read sizeable chunks of Arthur Vööbus' Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies. Are there reasons (beyond lack of publisher interest) that this book isn't more widely available? The reading really isn't too technical and I find it quite readable and informative.

I'm also re-reading C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia (in the proper as-published order, not the new-fangled 'chronological' order). Those are quick reads, though. I'm through The Lion, The Witch and thd Wardrobe and Prince Caspian. I'll dig into Voyage of the Dawn Treader a little later tonight.

The Bryn Mawr Classical Review (anyone know why they don't have an RSS Feed yet? That would be so cool!) recently published a review of The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria. Here are the bibliographic details:

James D. Ernest, The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 2. Leiden: Brill, 2004.  Pp. xiv, 482. ISBN 0-391-04176-2. €133.00.

More spendy books. The review by Hugh Houghton is well worth reading.

Unfortunately, this review also made me aware of Brill's series The Bible in Ancient Christianity series. This one is too spendy for me to pursue, even though the following title is tempting:

Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 1. Leiden: Brill, 2004. 2 vols (approx. 1500 pp total).  ISBN 90 04 09815 1. €295.- / US$ 339.-

But WOW does it sound like a fun book:

Through this Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, the reader will obtain a balanced and cohesive picture of the Early Church. It gives an overall view of the reception, transmission, and interpretation of the Bible in the life and thought of the Church during the first five centuries of Christianity, the so-called patristic era. The handbook offers the context and presuppositions necessary for understanding the development of the interpretative traditions of the Early Church, in its catechesis, its liturgy and as a foundation of its systems of theology.

And other folks too, of course. Here it is:

If/when there are ever any little Ricos (or little Rico-ettes) running around, please remind me of this article.

That is all.

If you have any interest in Gnostic literature, you should know that G.R.S. Mead's translation of the Pistis Sophia is now available online at sacred-texts.com.

I should note that the way the HTML is set up, it really only works on IE. There are marginal notes that use CSS positioning in an IE-specific manner. The "Production Notes" state:

PRODUCTION NOTES: In the original book, running comments are placed in the margins. The web version of this text uses Cascading Style Sheets and DHTML to emulate this layout. Hence, to get the best view of this you will need a recent browser: older browsers will still produce readable results, though not as pretty.

However, when I view in FireFox, the marginal stuff is overwritten by the primary text, making areas difficult to read.

Searching through old email of mine looking for information on a current problem, I ran across a quote I used to have in my email signature:

The worst criminals should be neither executed nor sentenced to forced labor, but should be condemned to compile dictionaries, because all the tortures are included in the work.

Wow. Lexicography isn't easy but that's a little harsh. Wish I had some context on that. The best I can find is this:

There can be no doubt that lexicography is a very difficult sphere of linguistic activity. Many lexicographers have given vent to their feelings in this respect. Perhaps the most colourful of these opinions based on a lexicographer's long experience is that of J.J Scaliger (16th-17th cent.) who says in fine Latin verses that the worst criminals should neither be executed nor sentenced to forced labour, but should be condemned to compile dictionaries, because all the tortures are included in this work. — LADISLAV ZGUSTA Manual of Lexicography (1971)

This is found on p. 5 of "CELEX: A Guide for Users". I have no idea what "CELEX" is, though.

I found the quote on this page as well. I don't know Chinese, but I also see a quote from Samuel Johnson, so the page has got to be good. Here's the Johnson quote:

Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach ...

And, since we're on the topic of lexicographers and quoteable quotes, I'll end with a favorite quote from Frederick W. Danker:

Change spells pain, but ... scholar's tasks are "not for sissies"

My brother is getting married. Friday, July 15. 1:00 pm.

He's my only sibling, so this is a first for me (and for him!).

Chuck and Barb, I wish you both the best. My prayer is that your marriage will be centered on seeking and following Jesus Christ. It seems redundant to say, but I love you both.

And Barb -- welcome to the family! Don't worry, we're not that weird once you really get to know us!

As a result of the festivities, blogging will be light (perhaps non-existent) through at least Saturday. Y'all enjoy your weekend, now -- especially if you're in the Pacific Northwest as it looks like we'll finally have some nice weekend weather!