"How We Got The New Testament" (Stanley Porter)--An Attempted Summary

I will keep adding to this review and editing until I feel that it's enough (satis est).

Stanley E. Porter. How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013).

This publication by Porter is part of the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology and produced in cooperation with the Hayward Lectureship. As the title implies, Porter deals with textual, critical, and canonical issues throughout the book with the principal focus being on the New Testament and how it was transmitted to us.

Porter discusses textual criticism, Bart Ehrman, eclecticism, Greek manuscripts, codexes, miniscules, lectionaries and translation issues. Believe it or not, the book is relatively short at 240 pages--in today's world of academia, that is short, but Porter covers quite a bit of ground in these pages and his erudition shines through brilliantly.

I will briefly review some highlights of the publication, but the main question which Porter seeks to address is how did we get the New Testament. Furthermore, what is its origin? While admitting that many have already sought to answer this query, the publication nevertheless strikes out again to shed fresh light on the subject. The terrain is a familiar one for Porter, yet does he offer anything new?

How We Got the New Testament attempts to provide some justification for the book (its responding to critics like the Jesus Seminar, Tom Harpur, and presumably, Bart Ehrman) and Porter supplies the background reasons for his work all while pointing readers to works for further reading that he could not interact with in this publication. He seems at pains to justify the raison d'être of the book and it's possible that he spends more time than necessary anguishing about yet another contribution to the canon and transmission debate of the New Testament, but I'm inclined to let his introductory comments slide. In the midst of his justification, he tries to disambiguate the general thesis of this book, namely, what do we mean by "the New Testament"? Part of the book is spent answering this question and related queries.

Porter starts his discussion in earnest with the story of John Brown from Haddington, Scotland: Brown acquired a Greek New Testament by reading a passage to a professor of Greek, Francis Pringle. The story could have been better connected to what follows, but the book moves from John Brown, his love for the GNT and accomplishments, to A.T. Robertson's view of the Greek New Testament. At this point, Porter begins to answer questions about the content of the GNT and what the goals of textual criticism allegedly are. He insists that "The traditional opinion of the purpose of textual criticism of the Greek New Testament is, ideally, to find the original autograph that the author wrote. Failing that, the purpose is to work back through the manuscript evidence to arrive at the earliest form of the text and then, through principles of textual criticism, to posit or reconstruct what the original text must have been."

The book then proceeds to survey writers or scholars, who explicitly state that the aims of textual criticism are to retrieve and discover the original biblical text: the names range from Erasmus, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort to Eberhard Nestle. The focus in this part of Porter's work is on nineteenth-century scholars; however, not much changes in the twentieth century with Frederic Kenyon, Alexander Souter, Kirsopp Lake, Harold Greenlee, Bruce Metzger, and the Alands. J.K. Elliott and Ian Moir (two contemporary textual critics) are added to this list. Porter then considers recent proposals in the field of textual criticism as he briefly discusses examples of texts that were possibly altered due to theological or social settings. In the midst of this discussion, an interesting quote appears from E.C. Colwell: "Ernest Cadman Colwell went so far as to claim, 'In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations . . . were made deliberately,' and he believed that it was for doctrinal reasons that most changes were introduced." Porter posits another reason for the changes: they were largely accidental.

Some verses that textual critics like to analyze include John 5:3-4; Acts 8:37; 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma). Porter simply mentions these verses in passing before moving on to Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Ehrman attributes various scriptural "corruptions" to four primary theological controversies (anti-adoptionist, anti-separationist, anti-docetic, and anti-patripassionist views), but Porter criticizes his treatment of Luke 3:22 where Ehrman prefers the reading, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." But the lectio appears to be later than the variant, "You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." Porter concludes that Ehrman's treatment is potentially misleading and apparently inadequate.

On the other hand, regarding 1 John 4:3, Ehrman opts for the reading, "does not confess" rather than "looses/separates." Porter notes that "loose/separate" is certainly not the original reading--it was probably developed as a result of anti-docetic controversies and the reading is late. On the other hand, it seems more difficult to ascertain why this particular change was made. Regardless of why certain alterations were made to the GNT, Porter maintains that 80-90% of the text is "unquestionably established" based on the extant manuscripts: there is no good reason to believe that the GNT as a whole is unstable or fluid.

Porter relates how the GNT came to be published after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the advent of the printing press. Despite some formidable impediments, the first GNT was printed in 1514 CE: this was sixty years after the advent of movable-type printing. This GNT was part of the famed Complutensian Polyglot and because papal approval for the project was required, this GNT was neither distributed nor published until 1522 CE. While the underlying text behind the Polyglot Greek text is less than certain, Porter says it probably utilized Vatican MSS that reflected the Byzantine textual tradition.

How We Got the New Testament continues with the story of Erasmus, the Dutch humanist and translator. We learn that his GNT was riddled with errors, both typographical and in terms of the Greek that Erasmus employed for his GNT: Greek not found in any other MS. He had good intentions since he wanted even the common person to read the Bible, but his edition is full of mistakes.

Porter tells a story I've read elsewhere concerning Erasmus: he was accused of leaving out the Johannine Comma from his GNT, that is, 1 John 5:7-8. Erasmus evidently replied that he found no textual evidence for the famed Trinitarian affirmation and that included Codex Vaticanus (03 B). However, Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his edition of the GNT if just one single MS could be brought forth with the words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” Likely to Erasmus' dismay, a MS now called Gregory 61 was produced, and it contained the Johannine Comma. The spurious text thus made its way into the Erasmian text and later, the KJV. Yet the Dutch humanist questioned the authenticity of the lectio: Porter thinks he was wise to doubt the reading because it is spurious:

Metzger notes that this passage has been found only in three other manuscripts: Gregory 88 (twelfth century), in which it is written marginally in a seventeenth-century hand; Tischendorf ω 110 (sixteenth-century copy of the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot); and Gregory 629 (fourteenth century or later). The so-called Johannine Comma does appear in the Latin treatise Liber apologeticus (fourth century), attributed to Priscillian or Instantius. The Johannine Comma appears for the first time in Latin Vulgate manuscripts around AD 800.

After discussing the Johannine Comma, Porter then reviews developments that occurred after various editions of Erasmus' GNT were published. We then learn about the Textus Receptus, a theologian named John Mill, Johann Bengel, Johann Semler, Johann Griesbach, Karl Lachmann, Constantin Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort and others who played a large role in supplying us with the present GNT.

Porter moves forward in time to the twentieth century as he reviews developments like the International Greek New Testament Project (1948), the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung which introduced the Editio Critica Maior in 1969. Michael Holmes makes an appearance in the discussion, and Porter is less than thrilled with his methodology concerning the SBLGNT. Regarding that project, the book states: "This may not be the best way forward in textual criticism of the Greek New Testament." The prior comments Porter makes about Holmes sting even more.

I will end this summary by noting that Porter explains the difference between the Textus Receptus, the Majority text and the Byzantine text. This discussion eventually leads him to answer the question, which edition of the Greek text should we study?

This summary has only dealt with a portion of Porter's book: I've read the entire work and think it's worthwhile, helpful, and written well like many of his books.

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part VIII)-Conclusion

The conclusion of my Caragounis vs. Porter entries has been too long in coming; nevertheless, I would like to make a few remarks in closing this discussion. The comments herein pertain to Caragounis, pages 333-336.

Caragounis aims many criticisms at Porter's aspect theory including how aspect is defined. For Porter, Greek verbal aspect grammaticalizes "the author's reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process" (Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, 333).

Porter's definition for aspect is supposed to be less than clear, it's unintelligible, recondite, opaque, and ponderous although Caragounis' main objection is likely that Porter makes aspect subjective or speaker-dependent and tenseless. Other things to observe about Porter's aspect definition is that he's one of the first theorists to define Greek aspect, he clearly distinguishes aspect from Aktionsart , and Porter bases his theory on interrelationships between divergent "tense forms" in Greek. Caragounis still does not find Porter's theory very useful.

Page 333 introduces another technical term: deixis, and Porter depends on John Lyons (a linguist) to shape his conception of deixis. Deixis itself is a hard concept to grasp at first. Moreover, linguists differentiate between person, temporal, and spatial deixis. I learned to think of deixis along the lines of indexicals or demonstrative terms. At any rate, the important consideration for now is temporal deixis.

According to Porter, temporal deixis (temporal indexicality) is indicated by a) lexical items; b) words like arti or palin; c) "anaphorical words" (e.g., near or remote demonstratives, determiners and pronominals). An example of lexical items would be the Greek word, nun.

Caragounis' dissatisfaction with Porter's employment of deixis is multifaceted. He insists that Porter does not give specific NT examples where Greek adverbs determine temporal reference for verbs. Moreover, the "lexical items" usually are missing when one examine actual cases of Greek discourse, but yet Porter still contends that the present verb form references the present "and the imperfect and aorist" point to the past (334). Hence, Caragounis writes, "The time reference seems to reside in the tense forms themselves" (Ibid.).

Do Porter's explanations suffice? Do they account for general tendencies of the Greek aorist or the present tense form? Caragounis thinks he has shown that Porter relies on anomalies, special cases and obscure explanations to make his point. He has not established that ancient Greek is solely aspectual, that is, tenseless.

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part VII)

This entry is my penultimate submission on the topic of Caragounis v. Porter. One other post will follow this one.

Caragounis not only criticizes Stanley Porter's treatment of various biblical passages and his papyri translations, but he's also less than kind to the "aspect only" approach. He points out that the advocates for "aspect only" either root their theoretical claims in a) secondary moods of Greek verbs (i.e., imperative, subjunctive, and the optative "along with the infinitive and the participle") or b) appeal to "a few odd or special cases of the indicative." See Caragounis, 331.

According to Caragounis, Buist Fanning employs the first method, while Porter relies upon the second:

"This is a fatal methodological error that leads to a distorted picture of tense and aspect" (332). Why does he see the need to correct the aspect only view?

1. One should begin with ordinary instances of the indicative mood, not odd or unusual cases. These represent the bulk of uses for the indicative mood, and the "ordinary indicative" is "the mood most frequently-occurring" (332). Caragounis provides data which allows us to test his claims. Even a cursory look at how Greek moods are employed in the GNT shows that writers overwhelmingly use the "ordinary indicative." So why not start there instead of beginning with special uses of the indicative or with the non-indicative moods?

2. Caragounis next looks at particular texts that Porter analyzes in Verbal Aspect in order that he might critically discuss where he thinks Porter falls short. Some of the texts that are considered include 2 Cor. 9:7; Mt. 7:19; 26:18; 2 Pet. 2:19; James 5:2-3; Acts 10:45. Porter analyzes other texts, but Caragounis uses the aforementioned passages to illustrate how wrongheaded it is to conclude Greek is tenseless, based on passages like these. Some of the verses represent special cases, whereas others occur in contexts that show the uses are gnomic, omnipresent or future. On the other hand, Caragounis believes that Porter disregards Acts 10:45 which seems to militate against his thesis that Greek is "aspect only."

3. Therefore, based on 15 texts or so, Porter concludes that Greek verbs do not grammaticalize tense. To quote Caragounis:

"This is Porter's evidence. On the basis of this 'evidence,' which he explains in an eigensinnig manner (texts, which are capable of other and better explanations), he arrives at the untenable conclusion that the Greek verb expresses no time - a conclusion that flies in the face of seventeen million Greeks, who daily use the verb to express time! And it is on the basis of these texts that he decides that the Greek verb expresses only aspect."

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part I)

This series of blog posts will revolve around a book written by Chrys Caragounis entitled The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2006).

I will start on page 316, then pick out certain portions of Caragounis' work to make my focus. On pp. 316-321, Caragounis argues by means of numerous sources that Greek has both tense and aspect (contra Porter). His entire critique of Porter's work is quite strong and direct: he mercilessly castigates Porter's findings.

I'm not going to spend much time on the tense-aspect debate, because it's already been covered many times, including on this blog. Interested parties can see:

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/10/matthew-1619-and-greek-aspect.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/11/aspect-and-aktionsart-john-1032-and.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/05/ism-time-grammaticalized-in-new.html


I will spend more time on subsequent analyses of Caragounis' book and his major disagreements with Porter.