In my previous post I discussed some of the difficulties of Textual Criticism, but I probably could have spent more time on an example. The opportunity came up in class tonight.
Since the professor was out sick, she assigned some work for us to do on the accompanying message board on a Rutgers-run website meant to give an additional resource for classes. One of the students responded to my criticisms but either because I wasn’t clear or they misunderstood, presumed I was suggesting that TC is a flawed analysis. I responded in this manner:
I am not so sure I’d say that TC is a flawed analysis. It depends on the question, doesn’t it? If I wanted to demonstrate that the many differences between manuscripts make it difficult to compile an ‘authoritative New Testament’ (that is, a New Testament that is the closest to the original), TC is the perfect method to use. But if I wanted to explain why these differences exist, TC is not helpful.
For example, in Matt. 3.15, some manuscripts contain an additional sentence. The original:
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
In some manuscripts, the text goes:
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented; and when he was baptized a huge light shone from the water so that all who were near were frightened.
So why the addition? Was it original? Well this addition is found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts. So someone arguing from a TC perspective might argue that this is probably not original. In fact they might say that, since Luke and John do not repeat this particular incident, chances are good that this is an addition only found in the Latin, and not original to the Greek. It certainly doesn’t seem to appear in any of our early Greek manuscripts. But does that ipso facto mean that it wasn’t part of an original composition?
Well, who can say for sure. But this is why I prefer literary criticism to textual criticism. In my humble opinion, I think that it fits the context of Matthew quite well. Matthew’s Gospel contains many elements of light vs. dark (cf. Matt 5.13-16, 10.27, 24.29, etc…); this dualism is seen most specifically in Matt 4 and in Matt 24:
Matt 4.14-16: So that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:“The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.”
Matt 24.29: Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
The themes are clear, from beginning to end. Matthew is playing with this dualism up until the passion narrative, where at the time of the death of Jesus, there was a darkness over the land (Matt 27.45). This is intentional, mind you. Matthew is drawing upon motifs found commonly in the Hebrew Bible. The thematic elements of Matt 24 are found in Zechariah 14.7:
And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.
And the author of Matthew ties this all together when the angel appears to the women outside the tomb in Matt 28. His appearance “is like lightening”. Indeed, Zechariah writes of this period of time that “Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.” (14.5) And in Matthew is the only appearance of the holy ones rising from the graves (located, actually, on the Mount of Olives…mentioned in Zech 14.4):
The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. (Matt 27.52)
Now, I could belabor the point and make a paper out of this. But my argument here is that TC, while very useful at certain things, is not useful entirely–that is, I don’t think it is very effective in and of itself. It lacks that exegetical function that is so valuable to literary theory. By my argument, the variant containing Jesus being baptized, with a light coming up from below, just adds to the same motifs found throughout Matthew. I don’t know if it was present in an original–I am skeptical that an “original” existed at all (perhaps there were many originals and not just a single Matthew. After all, the name ‘Matthew’ is just a designation we give to this collection of variants!). The Textual Critic like Ehrman might wholly dismiss this variant simply because it isn’t present in some early Greek manuscripts. But, I’m not so sure. Even if it had been a later addition, it certainly adds another flavor to the narrative, don’t you think?