Scholarship and Citation-glitches
- Dear Teunis:
Just a couple of notes:
In the book in which Dr. Ehrman refers to "Mark 16:9-21," on the following page he tells his readers that they can read about Jesus' sudden post-resurrection appearance to the disciples in Matthew 20:9; when the disciples hear the women's report, ~ "What do the disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them (Matthew 20:9)?"
He probably meant Matthew 28:9, not 20:9. In which case, it looks like he interprets the scene in Mt. 28:9 as an encounter between Jesus and the main group of disciples, rather than as an encounter between Jesus and the women when they are still on the way to the disciples -- rejecting the textual variant at the beginning of 28:9 which would make his interpretation impossible.
Even the best scholars are occasionally susceptible to fatigue, to casual mis-remembrance, to typographical errors, to deadlines, and to the temptation to take the shortcut of appealing to authority (including appeals to scholarly consensus). But they can still be serious scholars. We all stumble in many ways.
Regarding Hort's 1881 Intro and Notes on Select Readings: it was not my intention to discourage anyone from reading Hort. His book is one of the most important books on NTTC ever written. I just meant that it is important to approach Hort's 1881 book with an awareness of subsequent research and discoveries, and awareness of the impact which subsequent research and discoveries have upon some of Hort's claims. The TC-related works of several other scholars of the late 1800's, and early 1900's -- Harris, Scrivener, Burgon, Eberhard Nestle, Burkitt, Chase, Sanday, Lake -- can profitably be read the same way.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.