Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 20
82 One of the greatest potentials of Patristic quotations is that a Father can be “pinpointed
with relative precision in both time and space,” thus giving an insight to what the text looked like at a
particular period and geographical location (Ehrman, “The Use of the Church Fathers in New
Testament Textual Criticism,” 156). Patristic quotes are important witnesses to textual variants and
can offer the earliest glimpse of a gospel, however, Fee notes four main dilemmas: (1) did the Father
quote from a text or from memory, (2) was the Father normally precise or loose in his biblical quotes,
(3) was the Father’s work intended as a commentary or controversial treatise where accuracy could be
expected, or in a sermon where a quote may not be as precisely recorded, and (4) did the Father quote
from different Bibles in his works? Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament
Textual Criticism,” 344-345. Petersen remarks similarly about Patristic quotes, stating that it can be
uncertain if a citation is a “quotation, a paraphrase, or an allusion; one cannot know whether the
author is citing from memory or from a written source; etc.” Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,”
35-36. There are on occasion quotes introduced by a Father with the words, “For it is written.”
Glover, "Patristic Quotes and Gospel Sources,” 248. Ehrman states that “none of the so-called
apostolic fathers presents us with clear and certain citations of the New Testament documents to any
extent (if they cite these documents at all)." Ehrman, “The Text of the Gospels at the End of the
Second Century,” 99. Wheeler adds that “quite often the father quoted the same passage in different
forms,” he continues, “Origen is especially noted for this.” Wheeler, “Textual Criticism and the
Synoptic Problem,” 317. Royse refers to Fee and others when he notes, “The pitfalls in the
assessment of Patristic evidence have been frequently stated.” Though he generally does not include
the Patristic quotes in his study, Royse states, “Naturally, such a procedure is not intended to
minimize the importance of other evidence for other tasks in New Testament textual criticism, or
indeed even for a richer understanding of some of the readings considered here [i.e. in his Scribal
Habits]." Royse, Scribal Habits, 71.
82 One of the greatest potentials of Patristic quotations is that a Father can be “pinpointed
with relative precision in both time and space,” thus giving an insight to what the text looked like at a
particular period and geographical location (Ehrman, “The Use of the Church Fathers in New
Testament Textual Criticism,” 156). Patristic quotes are important witnesses to textual variants and
can offer the earliest glimpse of a gospel, however, Fee notes four main dilemmas: (1) did the Father
quote from a text or from memory, (2) was the Father normally precise or loose in his biblical quotes,
(3) was the Father’s work intended as a commentary or controversial treatise where accuracy could be
expected, or in a sermon where a quote may not be as precisely recorded, and (4) did the Father quote
from different Bibles in his works? Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament
Textual Criticism,” 344-345. Petersen remarks similarly about Patristic quotes, stating that it can be
uncertain if a citation is a “quotation, a paraphrase, or an allusion; one cannot know whether the
author is citing from memory or from a written source; etc.” Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,”
35-36. There are on occasion quotes introduced by a Father with the words, “For it is written.”
Glover, "Patristic Quotes and Gospel Sources,” 248. Ehrman states that “none of the so-called
apostolic fathers presents us with clear and certain citations of the New Testament documents to any
extent (if they cite these documents at all)." Ehrman, “The Text of the Gospels at the End of the
Second Century,” 99. Wheeler adds that “quite often the father quoted the same passage in different
forms,” he continues, “Origen is especially noted for this.” Wheeler, “Textual Criticism and the
Synoptic Problem,” 317. Royse refers to Fee and others when he notes, “The pitfalls in the
assessment of Patristic evidence have been frequently stated.” Though he generally does not include
the Patristic quotes in his study, Royse states, “Naturally, such a procedure is not intended to
minimize the importance of other evidence for other tasks in New Testament textual criticism, or
indeed even for a richer understanding of some of the readings considered here [i.e. in his Scribal
Habits]." Royse, Scribal Habits, 71.