An-Ting Yi, "From Erasmus to Maius: The History of Codex Vaticanus in New Testament Textual Scholarship" (de Gruyter, 2024)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network

Episode: An-Ting Yi, "From Erasmus to Maius: The History of Codex Vaticanus in New Testament Textual Scholarship" (de Gruyter, 2024)
Host: Amisa (New Books Network)
Guest: Dr. Nan Ting Yi
Release date: May 21, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode discusses Dr. Nan Ting Yi’s open access monograph From Erasmus to Maius: The History of Codex Vaticanus in New Testament Textual Scholarship. The conversation explores how scholarly authority is constructed, inherited, and negotiated, using the Codex Vaticanus—a pivotal Greek New Testament manuscript—as a case study. Rather than a narrow manuscript study, Yi’s book examines the evolving authority of the Codex across five centuries of scholarship, highlighting issues of access, institutional and personal power, changing methods, and the manifold stories that shape textual criticism.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Book’s Focus: Authority, Not Just Manuscripts

• [02:48] The book isn’t a technical study on the manuscript’s script or textual variants. Instead, it’s about how the Codex Vaticanus came to be regarded as foundational within biblical studies.
• Dr. Yi highlights that “this book is not about… Codex Vaticanus per se. It is a study of the many stories surrounding this very manuscript.”

2. Dr. Yi’s Motivation: Scholarly Trends and Personal Roots

• [04:34] Recent decades in New Testament textual criticism have seen two trends:
  • Focusing on individual manuscripts.
  • Reflecting on the history and reception of scholarship.
• Dr. Yi combines these by tracing the Codex’s reception history: “It becomes kind of a reception history or the history of effect... on a specific manuscript.”
• [07:38] Personally, Yi is “always interested in history,” and as a Christian, felt called to explore the Bible’s material history.

3. Erasmus and Historical Context: Rethinking Early Criticism

• [10:15] Modern criticism often faults Erasmus for not appreciating the Codex Vaticanus’ value, but Yi argues this is anachronistic.
• In the 16th century, Erasmus judged Vaticanus by his contemporary standards, believing it to be a “Latinized [and] bad manuscript.”
• Political and scholarly polemics (opponents feeding selective data) influenced Erasmus’ perceptions: “He evaluated Codex Vaticanus based on what he had known about other Greek New Testament manuscripts. Then he came to kind of a conclusion that this is a bad manuscript because it does not fit into his standard…”

4. Access, Power, and Archives: Barriers to Knowledge

• [17:08] The Codex Vaticanus was physically and institutionally inaccessible for centuries, housed in the tightly controlled Vatican Library. For over 200 years, most scholars could only access partial or inaccurate collations.
• [19:46] Napoleon’s seizure of Rome and the Codex’s exile to Paris suddenly made it widely accessible to continental scholars—a pivotal moment in its scholarly reassessment.
• “Accessibility is one of the core issues or core themes of my book... For say 200 years, people had to rely on imperfect and sometimes incorrect data set.” — Dr. Yi [17:08]

5. Institutional and Personal Power in Scholarship

• [23:43] Power dynamics (social, institutional, collegial) shape who gets access and scholarly authority.
• 19th-century scholars Tischendorf (with support letters and status) gained privileged access, while talented outsiders like Tregelles were denied entry, despite their ability.
• “If you have more resources, if you have a good connection... you could probably get the privilege to study what you want... [Without them,] you might not have the opportunity even though you might be as skillful as the other.” — Dr. Yi [23:43]

6. Rejecting the “Progress Narrative”

• [28:59] Yi resists the simplification that textual criticism naturally advances toward “truth” as methods improve.
• Historical figures often worked within contemporary methodological frameworks that shaped their conclusions; value judgments shift as those frameworks change.
• Example: Weststein’s 18th-century work prioritized manuscript quantity (“majority text”) over age, pioneering collation and numbering systems still used today. Methods, not the manuscripts themselves, are what change value perceptions.

7. Shifting Methods, Shifting Values

• [34:38] - [39:50] The relative value of Codex Vaticanus (or any manuscript) is contingent on prevailing criteria—what was viewed as inferior in one era may be prized in another.
• Memorable analogy: changes in dietary advice around rice and sweet potatoes in Taiwan illustrate how value isn’t fixed in things, but in changing evaluations.

8. Karl Lachmann’s Pivotal Intervention

• [40:33] Lachmann, a classical scholar, applied rigorous classical philological methods to New Testament textual criticism, championing reliance on “older” manuscripts like Vaticanus.
• Lutched as an “outsider,” he bypassed theological debates and traditions, instead treating the text as a historical artifact.
• His scholarly pragmatism (“it’s a work in progress... you could change it later”) allowed for a major paradigm shift.

9. Maius and the Print Revolution: “Portable Authority”

• [45:32] In the 19th century, Cardinal Angelo Maius printed the first full edition of Codex Vaticanus, making it globally “portable” for scholars—though the edition was expensive, sometimes inaccurate, and prompted unauthorized copies.
• Political (Protestant–Catholic) tensions colored reactions, but print access transformed the Codex into a common referent for textual critics.

10. Implications for Modern Scholarship and Historicity

• [50:33] Recognizing the constructed, contingent nature of authority in scholarship doesn’t mean we must be skeptical of all critical editions, but should foster both critical engagement and appreciation.
• “We have to look [at editions] critically... but also appreciation... For such an edition... it took years or decades to produce.”

11. Relevance Beyond Biblical Studies

• [54:17] Yi hopes scholars in other fields will draw inspiration from her book: don’t take disciplinary traditions for granted, and be conscious of our own privileges and positions as scholars.
• “We better not to take the tradition of the discipline for granted... if we could have the awareness to look back ... to see where does this tradition come from and also where do we stand nowadays.”

---

Memorable Quotes

• On institutional power:
  “Power is everywhere, right? ... For example ... if you have more resources, if you have a good connection... you could probably get the privilege to study what you want ...” — Dr. Yi [23:43]

• On changing value:
  “It’s not that the manuscript itself changed; it’s how people look at it that’s changed... I use the example of rice and sweet potatoes. The nutrition does not change, but how we look at it does.” — Dr. Yi [39:50]

• On scholarly humility:
  “He [Lachmann] even mentioned himself that it’s a work in progress. What I propose here, you could change that later.” — Dr. Yi [42:04]

• On modern critical editions:
  “We would need to put them into their context and also to have kind of critical appreciation. ... If they have tried their best, then we should give them credit, but still critically engage with the text they produce.” — Dr. Yi [51:27]

• On broader lessons:
  “We better not to take the tradition of the discipline for granted.... look back into our tradition ... there should also be some discontinuity in the place that how we know it’s the differences... between the past scholarship and ourselves.” — Dr. Yi [54:17]

---

Notable Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | |------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 00:01–02:48| Introduction to Codex Vaticanus and Dr. Yi | | 04:34 | Why study the scholarly history, not just the text | | 10:15 | Reframing criticism of Erasmus | | 17:08 | The problem of access and the Codex’s exile in Paris | | 23:43 | Power and privilege in textual criticism | | 28:59 | Rejecting linear “progress narrative” | | 34:38–39:50| Manuscript value as fluid and method-dependent | | 40:33 | Karl Lachmann’s paradigm shift | | 45:32 | Maius, print editions, and “portable authority” | | 50:33 | Historical contingency of textual authority today | | 54:17 | Relevance for historians and other fields | | 57:44 | Dr. Yi’s next project on religion and technology |

---

Conclusion

Dr. Nan Ting Yi’s book, and this discussion, provide a nuanced, historically-informed reflection on the construction of scholarly authority. Using Codex Vaticanus as a case study, Yi illuminates issues of accessibility, institutional power, the shifting value of evidence, and the role of historical contingency in knowledge production—lessons that resonate far beyond New Testament studies. The episode serves as an invitation for scholars in all fields to continually interrogate their own histories, methods, and privileges.

---

Transcript

[Amisa]

Welcome to the New Books Network. Welcome to NBN New Books Network. Today we are discussing how scholarly authority is constructed and not just how it's discovered, but how it's also inherited from the past, but built over true time, assets, institutions and methods. And Our guest is Dr. Anthony, author of the open access monograph From Erasmus to the History of Codes Vaticanus, a New Testament textual scholarship published by the Gruta in 2024. For listeners who may not be specialists in biblical studies, Codes Vaticanus is routinely described as one of the most important manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It sits behind most of the modern critical editions today. And this book is not about reconstructing the original New Testament text. It's about the history of scholarly judgment and how certain objects or tests come to be regarded as decisive, even foundational, and an honor cow within academic disciplines. Dr. Yi, welcome to New Books Network.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Thank you so much. Dr. Bakuri, thank you for having me here. Yeah. Dear Amisa. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's so nice to have.

[Amisa]

And at this point I'll start calling you Auntie.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes, yes, if I may, I will call you dear Amisa. Yeah, that's more nature for me. Yeah.

[Amisa]

Yes. So would you briefly tell us about yourself?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

For sure, yes. I'm Nan Tingyi, originally from Taiwan, but in the past decade I have been in the Netherlands first as an international student to study here. I got my PhD in 2023 and this book is the result of my PhD dissertation published in 2024. Currently I'm working at the School of Religion and Theology at Frei University State Amsterdam. And also I have the privilege to be the colleague of Dear Dr. Amisa at a wonderful university. So now I'm doing teaching and some research related to manuscript and also contextuality of scholarship.

[Amisa]

Awesome. It shows in your book that you are really interested in manuscripts and it's also a pleasure to work with you and now talk about your book. So I first read your book as a historian because I have a history background and not more as a religious study scholar or something because I was trying to understand the history behind manuscripts and all those things. So this is how I come in. But also I'm an anthropologist so hopefully if we have time we can talk

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

about that, we'll see. It's a big book, right? For the audience, for readers. I don't know. It's more than 600 pages, so.

[Amisa]

Yes. But the nice thing is that you don't need to do all at a go and you get into it and you don't want to put it down, you really want to finish and understand what is behind it. So even though it's a big book, if you are interested, it's not a big book. And you write so nicely. I really like how you write. This is not a book about. I'm like, yeah, like this, like showing us what the book really is about. So to begin and to now dive into the book and for audience who may not necessarily know much about manuscript study like me, this book is not really a traditional manuscript study. It's not focused on like calligraphy or textual variants as such, but rather is how authority forms within scholarship. Right. So my question to you is what motivated you to shift attention from the context of Codes Vaticanus to the history of how it has been judged?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Thank you, Amisa. Yeah, thank you. First again to read through this book and, yeah, engage with what I have done. As you briefly mentioned that in the opening page of my book, I mentioned this. Here I quote my own words that this book is not about. It's not a study of the Codex Vaticanus per se. It is a study of the many stories surrounding this very manuscript. So as Amisha, you already mentioned, this is only one hand to focus on the manuscript, but it's to use this as a mean to, to analyze or to narrate some of the many stories in scholarship surrounding it. So you asked me about why, what's the motivation behind this? Actually, it's a very good question. And I think I could answer that maybe first from a scholarly perspective, from the field of New Testament textual criticism, it's that in the past decades or so in the field, in this field, that scholars began to not only look at the text, so the New Testament text and how you can create or recreate, reconstruct the text, but more to the manuscripts themselves. So if you look into the publication in the past two decades, you will find out many more and more publications on specific manuscript to look into their content, their texts, their textual variants. But then there's another trend within this scholarship, is that people started reflecting upon the history of the scholarship. That is to say, how scholars in the past, this is an old discipline, started, we would say, from Erasmus, so 500 years ago till now, how scholars reflect and use manuscripts. So it's another trend. So for me, it's kind of to try to combine these two trends. On the one hand, the focus on manuscripts, on the other hand, the focus on history itself. So put these two together, it becomes kind of a reception history or the history of effect, no matter how you call that on a Specific manuscript. This is answer more professionally, but also I could give you a more personal.

[Amisa]

I'm curious about the unprofessional one. I want the personal one as well.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

For me, I'm always interested in history and things. My youth I had been fascinated by all the historical novels and stories and so look into the past and try to imagine what could have happened. It's. I don't know, just part of me and also that I am. I also indicate this in the last part of the my book that I myself is a Christian believer. So this is part of my tradition that the Bible and the Scriptures and also all behind that. So I was curious to know a bit more about the history behind all the Bibles or everything that we nowadays read. So then this opportunity and the more scholarly reflection or context arise then. And then I got this opportunity to do this project that first of all it's scholarly, relevant, but also at the same time it also relates or. Yeah, can talk to my heart, so to say.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. I like how the professional and the personal come together beautifully because we get to also know who you are beyond just your academics. We know that you are Christian and a lover of history books.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes, that's true. I still have lots of historical novels on the bookshelves nowadays. So yeah, I love to read.

[Amisa]

Awesome. Talking about history. Let's go 500 years behind and talk about Erasmus because in your book, as I got to know more about him, he. In modern accounts, Erasmus is sometimes criticized, maybe sharply, for not using codes Vaticanus in the Greek New Testament. The implication is that there was the evidence and he perhaps simply failed to recognize his value. But your first chapter actually reframes this criticism. What do modern scholars misunderstand about Erasmus relationship to the Vaticanus?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes, thank you, Amisa. Yes. I'm thinking how to phrase this in their concise but also understandable way. I would say that on the one hand, modern scholarship is right in the sense that they criticize Erasmus for not using the codex in a proper way or in a way that he did not recognize its value. So on this surface it's correct. But why I try to rephrase or re narrate this story is that very often, as I have discovered during the project, that we use our own eyes and our own perspective to look back into history. In the case of Erasmus, we had to think of this time, that is the first half of the 16th century. So for him, first of all, he did not have the method or the evaluation system that has become the standard nowadays. So for him it's really that actually the opposite of what nowadays we are familiar with. That is to say he evaluated Codex Vaticanus based on what he had known about other Greek New Testament manuscripts. Then he came to kind of a conclusion that this is a bad manuscript because it does not fit into his standard or system. So he called that it's a Latinized manuscript and according to Erasmus it's a bad one. Although it might be an ode. I mean in terms of the age of the manuscript, but in terms of the content Erasmus evaluated that it has been polluted, so to say. So he disregard of the manuscript. On the other hand, I would perhaps not to speak for Erasmus, but I would say that what he Erasmus had is also a filtered set of data. So he himself probably did not see the manuscript by his own eyes. But it's one of his famous opponents in Rome, this guy calls Spoevada. So it's a Spanish scholar. He collected the data from Codex Vaticanus with the intention to write against Erasmus project, New Testament project. So basically this opponent Spoveda said that, okay, I collect all this data from an old manuscript and let's disagree with your project, dear respect for Erasmus. So I would like to hear from you about how you think of this, all this that I actually, if we put this in a kind of scholarly debate or kind of conflict, you could imagine that for Erasmus what he received was a set of data that's really arranged to. To against his own project. So this could in my opinion lead to Erasmus disagreement because that's in a way could have the potential risk for his career as a New Testament scholar and for his project. So also for his evaluation system, then he decided no, this could not be a good one. So I would say that if we, I mean modern day scholars, we do not take all this into account, we could very easily say that, okay, Erasmus is another good squatter. He could not recognize the value of this ancient manuscript. So yeah, he did a bad job. But I would say the story is more complicated than the surface level.

[Amisa]

I think you. Thank you so much. I think you make this clear throughout the book about noting that when people are aware of a document doesn't necessarily mean they have access to it. And I like how you also talk about taking into consideration the time period and then in court the politics happening at that time because you have opposition and they are also trying to ruin your career in one way or the other. So context does matter. Time and all the things happening at that time may influence how people relate to a Certain document. Now let's talk about assets. So you really show us that sometimes people are aware of a document or a test or something being an object to think of it more broadly, but they may not be able to have access to it and it runs through your book. So Code's Vaticanus was not just an ancient manuscript, it was an object housed in one of the mostly most tightly controlled archives in Europe and the Vatican Library. So I was wondering, my question is how central is restricted access to your explanation of why Vaticanus mattered so little for so long and because you showed that for centuries, Vaticanus, you like to say codex rather than Vaticanus. Right?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

It's easier to pronounce. But of course, yeah, in the book I, I think I, yeah, I realize

[Amisa]

that your preference is codex.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

The Codex Vaticanus or the Codex. Yeah, it's just easier to pronounce because Vaticanus is a lot word.

[Amisa]

So Codex Spec Layton has a reputation than as a usable scholarly object. So what does that tell us about our relationship with archives and knowledge production?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Thank you. Yeah, it's a very deep question, I would say. And as amisa you rightly recognize that accessibility is one of the core issues or core themes of my book. We could, perhaps I could put this in a simplified way that in the first centuries after Erasmus, scholars knew of this ancient codex ancient manuscript in the Vatican Library, but not many could have access to see it, let alone really research on it. So for say 200 years, people had to rely on imperfect and sometimes incorrect data set. And for manuscript study it's the collation that is someone most of the time scholars or librarian, they copy some of the variants, readings from a manuscript against a given printed text. Then it's a set of data. So people, scholars had to rely on those set of data and it by no means perfect and also it's always selective. But nowadays we do research, we, we only have limited scope, so we, we have some selections by then it's more so then the issue of accessibility I can give the audience. I think it's a telling example that is at the turn of the 1800s. So by then in the European continent there was a big event that is, there was someone called Napoleon Bonobo and he was trying to conquer the entire Europe, including Rome and the Vatican. So before that as amisa you said that the Vatican Library and also all the treasure, the manuscripts within had been very difficult for scholars outside Rome to study that. But because of Napoleon or whether we could say that thanks to Napoleon he conquered Rome and the next thing he did if any of you know about Napoleon and his character, he did that all the time, in all places. He selected treasures within the Vatican Library and brought back to Paris, including this very codex. So for about 15 to 20 years, Codex Vaticanus was in Paris, not in Rome. Ironically, we could say that due to its exile period, the accessibility did not seem to be an issue. So when the codex was in Paris, it's kind of an open space, so scholars and people could have access to the manuscript, could study that. So by then there was a scholar called Hawke, he went to Paris, studied the codex for a certain amount of time, several months, and then he published import and important volume on this codex, kind of telling his colleagues that, you know what, this codex is really good. The quality of that, the content of that, the text of the codex is something we could not miss. So it has to play with the issue of accessibility. And also that Vaticanus, Codex Vaticanus was for a while outside of the Vatican Library. And since the defeat of Napoleon, the codex was returned to the library in Rome. And then, since then, until nowadays, it has been storage there. And yeah, the issue of whether you could get access to that became again, an important one since 1815 or so. Yeah. So I would say true. And who got the right or who was granted to study, who was rejected? It's always a difficult issue that when we look into the study of Codex Vaticanus of many other archival entries, I think, Misa, you also have experiences in this that. Yeah, it's not always you will get access to study what you want. You have first to prove that perhaps that you are a good scholar, you have the reputation and you. You have to strike for your right to the manuscript holders or museums or library that I can do study on this and that archive. Please give me the. Yeah, the right to do so. It's certainly true nowadays. I think even more so. Yeah. In the past.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. So if I understand correctly and from even reading your book, access was such a huge thing, but also there were a lot of power play in that. And so pushing you a bit further, to what extent can we think of textual criticism as something heavily influenced by institutional power, but even not just institutional power, but just power at play, different kinds of power at play.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Wow, that's a really sharp question. Thank you, Amitha. Yes. Yeah. If we follow Foucault, I think power is everywhere, right? Yes, yes. And I certainly see that in my book project. Let me give you another example, one of my favorite examples. In the 19th century, there were a pair of scholars Kisschendorf and Tchigale. So Tischendorf was a German professor, very famous still nowadays. And in the 19th century you could say that he was the leading scholars in the field. So he had the power to God recommendation letters from prince of the the German nations and all other high prestigious to backing up, backing up to go to Paris, to go to other places, including Rome, to study manuscripts. So Tischendorf, I think he could be regarded as the privileged one that within this institutional power that he got almost always, not always access to study the manuscript, even Podak Vaticanus. But the other scholar, the less famous one, Triggeres, he was England self learned, never got a university position, but very skillful critique. And his story is kind of the opposite to Tischendorf in terms of their request for studying the codex. So Tregales was rejected. He could not really get into the library to study what he planned, planned to do. Instead he was kind of implicitly, I would not say humiliated, but at least had many burden and also barriers in front of Cicades. So even though we wish we could say that scholarship, or in general, or textual criticism in particular, it's kind of a neutral. We only pursue the truth, the order, the true text or so. But in reality, for example, I just show that it's not always the truth that if you have more resources, if you have a good connection among the. Those famous people, you could probably get the privilege to study what you want to do the other way. Also it's true that if you do not have all these resources, you might not have the opportunity to do the research, even though you might be as skillful as the other. So I would say that, yeah, power issue and power structure is everywhere and it's not per se a bad thing. But the first thing, and also that's what I was trying to show in my book is that we have in the first place to be aware of this. Instead of just saying that we just pursue the scholarship for the scholarship's sake. Or it's a neutral. Yeah, neutral research without all the. Yeah. All the power structure behind that. I would say, yeah, we have to be aware of all this.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. I think awareness is key, that there is power at play at many places, institutions with colleagues and all that which you really show throughout your book. Now I want to ask about being against the progressive narrative. So a major historical intervention in your book is your resistance to what we might call the progress narrative. The idea that scholarship moves closer to truth as methods improve and you place great emphasis on polemics. Disagreements, abundant projects, thought frameworks and all that. So the question is, why is it a mistake to treat the rise of Codex as a simple story of scientific progress?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Thank you. Wow, what a nice question. I think what I try to do is not to tell a simplified story that just like in many places, the winners take it all, that this is what we now see as standard. So that it's the story that we finally recognize the value of Codex Vaticanus. This is certainly true from a more than critical perspective, but it does not mean that other stories deserve not to be narrated. So I would say that I may not use the word simplify or. But I would say that at least we need to recognize the past and also the history of this field in order to know where we are. Like what I described in one of the chapters on west side. It's an 18th century scattered. From a modern point of view, his framework and what he did was really not according to our standard, that he prefer the majority tax, which means that it's more like mathematics. You count all the witnesses you have and then say that let's vote, maybe more democratic then we do. But then Weisstein said that, okay, so it's about counting, but not about the age of the manuscript. So from a modern day perspective, we would say that his method or his framework is outdated. It's really poor. But we have to look into his context and what he had at hand. What he did is in the first place to collect the data as much as possible. Because by then there were no systematic ways to really put all data together. And Westline was also the pioneer. The first person tried to use a numbering system to call manuscripts. Before that it's like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrianas, Codex blah, blah, blah. You have all the names. It's nice and it looks fancy, but as we in our conversation, it's sometimes difficult to pronounce, even for me, even

[Amisa]

the words, the names. I was like, how do I mention these names?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yeah, there are other names of the manuscript even more difficult. So Wese came up with the idea that I can use, or we could use number and also the sigla of latinized characters to represent manuscripts. So he kind of constructed the first numbering system that nowadays we still partially inherited. We adjust that and expand that for sure. But we learned something from the past. But we could not simply disregard all his efforts, all the previous scholarships effort, and say that because of his framework we don't think it's a good. He, he was a good scholars. I try to refuse to say so. I Think it's more complicated and actually more rich if we could look at different stories with their own rights.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. It was even a question I had in mind because you were careful enough to let us know that we may think that scholars may have reached bad decisions or mistaken conclusions. But then you really do point out that these manuscripts did not just have this fixed value and that depending on the method, the person thought was useful for them at that time, made them really use, understand things differently. So kind of letting us know that the methods. So it's not just today that we debate about methodologies we are using, but also in the past people were trying to make sense of documents and tests and all that. And sometimes it made them reach a certain conclusion. And you make for me how I understood it, also because I'm reading it from a very different background, is that we should not see them as failure, but rather we should also see them as a process. So could you unpack for listeners who are not, who have not yet read your book or who are not familiar with the base in textual criticism, like how this value keep shifting and methods keep also shifting?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Sure, of course. I think first of all we could say that textual criticism is discipline. Let compare different texts of the same edition. And in this case it's about the New Testament. So the New Testament of the Greek text, that's the core thing. And there's different manuscripts that contain different readings of this Greek Bible. So that textual critiques, those scholars who are in the field who compare and analyze all these texts. So that's basically the day to day job for textual critiques. Then it comes to the crucial question, Amisa, you just mentioned. That is we have plenty of data, different text, and we have limited information about land because that's maybe 1000 year, 500 year, or for some like Codex Vaticanus, it's more than 600 years before. So it's four centuries. So we have limited information about it. For scholars, it's very important to come to kind of a set of criteria or an evaluation system to evaluate which one is better. Because you'd say at one place you may have five different readings, then how would you compare and evaluate which one is better, more ancient than the others? So then we could maybe I could use this metaphor to set up why I would say that manuscript do not have fixed value, but it's kind of fluent. And depending on the method, first I will give a metaphor and then come to the real stuff of textual criticism. So in my home country in Taiwan, we used to we are people who eat rice. So rice is one of our. Just like the bread here in the Netherlands. So we eat rice and white rice used to be the top because it's sweet and it's nice and have special smelling. In the past in Taiwan, people, especially for those who are underprivileged, they could not afford rice to buy rice because it's more expensive. Then sometimes they will mix the rice with sweet potatoes. Because sweet potato is one of the main product in Taiwan in the past, but it was much cheaper. So for poor people at home, they will have rice and sweet potato mixed together. For richer people, they will have rice, rice only. But then I think, Amisa, you and also the listener will know that nowadays research, nutrition research, let us know that actually. Right. White rice is not so good for your health. But sweet potato and potato or other things are better for your health. So nowadays it's not say that sweet potato itself change its value. It's more like we standing from the 21st century perspective, we know that actually the nutrition of sweet potato is better than rice. So nowadays we treasure sweet potato and put them more in our dishes than before. I use this example to illustrate that actually in textual criticism, it's also the same that at one time scholars treasure a certain type of text. They thought that this is better than others. But then, especially from the 19th century onward, with more data gathered and new methods raised, scholars began to think that maybe we should consider the opposite. That is the text behind codex. But Canis should be the better one. So the codex itself and its content remains the same. It does not change. But what has been changed is how people look at that. Just as sweet potatoes, it's nutrition, everything does not change. But how we look at it has changed. I would say it's because of this. Nowadays we value this codex very much. Not like so in Erasmus and his followers time.

[Amisa]

Awesome. Thank you so much. I really like the rice and the sweet potato analogy.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Me too. I think it's something. Yeah.

[Amisa]

So let's turn to what might be considered. I think the pivot of the book, which is Karl Lachman. And Lachman appears as a scholar who finally recognized the importance of codex. Yes, but you reverse that logic. So my question, what exactly changes with Lachman and why does that change? Change allow coders to become authoritative for the first time.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes. So Lachmann was again a German scholar. I think he was professor at Berlin university in the first half of the 19th century. So for many, they would consider Lahman as the hero to the development of New Testament textual criticism. I would not say that totally no to this, but I would say that Lachman, what he did is rely on previous scholarship, just as what I mentioned at Hogg. He published before Lachman a close analysis on the codex when Clark was in Paris. That was kind of a foundation Lachman could rely on. And also one of the things I noted in my book is that Lachman was. I consider him as an outsider. What does that mean? He was a classical scholar, not a biblical scholar per se. Of course, he had a huge different interest in different books. So actually he applied the method from a related field in the classical studies onto the manuscript of the New Testament. And he said that why don't we also compare this and use the more ancient manuscript as our basis? So in a way, Lahman avoided to jump into all the theological debates, all the traditions behind the New Testament text. Because this is the word of God. It's kind of authoritative. How could you dare to change it? That was for many years, the underlying. How do you say that, the ideology behind all this. Though there were some scholars before Lahmann, they thought that maybe we should do some changes to the traditional text that was treasured from the 16th century, after the printing era onwards. But those scholars dare not to really make progressive changes because of the issues I just mentioned, and also the tradition or the authority of the church. But Lachman, in a way, he was kind of. Yeah, outside of all this debate. And he said that. No, I just see this as a scholarly work and it's. He even mentioned himself that it's a work in progress. What I propose here, you could change that later. It's not perfect, but it's kind of something we can reach at this point based on what we have at hand. So I also partially address that the character of this scholar is kind of pragmatism, that he knew that in advance, that he could not reach a perfect addition. But by no means he would not try that. He would say, okay, let me try and let we have something that can be the point of departure to move forward. So it's really a mixture of many things and also the spirit of the time in the 19th century, the modernity and all the surrounding ideas that make this progress. And Rahman was the person who put the button, so to say that. Okay. And then afterwards, people after him respect what he has done. And also. Yeah, based on what he made to build upon the more critical attention. Awesome.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. So from Lagman, we move to Marius Mayos was in the title of your Book from Erasmus to Miles so the final chapter brings us to Angelus Mayos and the edicio principles of codex. For people who are listening and for readers this might seem like a technical or even anti climatic endpoint, but you treat it more like a transformative process. So my question is why does poynting codex matter so much for its authority? Because you make this compelling claim that once printed codex becomes a portable authority. The portable authority part sounds fun for me.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

So yes, so Miles, he was by land the librarian of the Vatican Library. So he was purely an insider and for I think for decades he had this project at hand to print the first edition of the codex. So this is a huge project that cover both the Old Testament and also the New Testament. It's I think in the end it's six volumes. So it's not an easy task even from today's standard. So Miles, on the one hand he was asked by the Pope to execute this project. He himself, from others perspective might not be the best candidate to do so. He was more like a classical scholar, not a biblical scholar. But since this codex was and still is in the Vatican and he was a cardinal, so Cardinal Miles so he was assigned to do this. Then back to with this background that amisa your question about the additional portable authority. I would say that the first printed edition of Codex Vaticanus was a mixture in terms of its reception. On the one hand, as you rightly pointed out, that the manuscript and also its accessibility nowadays, nowadays by land, I would say in the midst of the 19th century became really astonished you could afford those 5, 6 volume, then you would be able to have access to the manuscript and its text. And by the way, I also discovered that there were many unauthorized printed edition or copies of this edition. Mine with edition I guess because it was so expensive and difficult to grant to get so many publisher and many even individuals, I think they were trying to produce their own edition based on my wizardation. So that was also an interesting phenomenon. But I say that it's a mixture reception because on the other hand scholars discover that mine was addition. The quality of that was not as good as they had expected, which means that there might be errors, there might be some mistakes within the edition, but you could imagine that it's understandable for such a big project and also that it's across many years it's not very easy to be as precise as possible. But then there's also another factor played a role that is the Catholic Protestant tension. Many textual scholars were and still are I think from the Protestant Circles they even came up by then a conspiracy theory that it is because those Catholic, the Vatican, they did not really want us to have the real text of the Codex. So this is behind the edition and behind my wu's project that it was not a good project, not a good reliable tax, but even low, it might not be perfect. I would say that for the majority or the large portion of the content, since the in the middle of the 18th, sorry, 19th century, scholars could assess, could have access to the text of the Codex.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. I really like how you talk about the manuscript authority and how it became portable. But its portability also raised a lot of issues because of course, people also try to make their own versions. So here I want to raise a deliberate challenge. If manuscript authority is historically constructed, is method dependence and institutions shape it, how might that undermine how we see modern addition? Modern additions.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Now I have one here.

[Amisa]

So how can we acknowledge this historical contingency of scholarly authority without collapsing it into skepticism about scholarly results? Like more or less. I'm trying to see like we start being a bit careful and a bit concerned about today's editions.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Amisa. I would say that we would have to see every edition, either that more than critical edition that is produced by the most famous representative international institute nowadays, or it's a 19th century edition produced by someone. We would need to put them into their contacts and also to have kind of critical appreciation. These two combine together. On the one hand, we have to look them critically in the sense that we could try our best to know the production of the addition, if that our ambiguities allowed, allowed us to do so. Put that into context, what kind of data they have access to, what kind of data they could not have access, and also the methodological issues, which method is applying to this addition, etc. Etc. But on the other hand, I would also bring the word appreciation onto the table because we maybe it's, I don't know, scholarly nature or who lived in the post modern era that we very often we have our own opinion and we jumped quickly to criticism and judgment. But for such an addition, it actually took years or decades to produce. If we could have a kind of appreciation to what have been done, what kind of effort have been put into this edition, I think we could have a more nuance and holistic point of view to look at those additions. I would say it's not neutral, as we discussed before, but if they have, I mean, the editors, if they have tried their best, then we could to We. We should. We should give them the credit, but still critically engaged with the text they produce. I would probably. That's how I would answer your question.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. That we should critically engage and then also appreciate their efforts. I like the word appreciate. So as we move toward the closing, I wanted to broaden the lines. I know that this book is clearly situated in New Testament scholarship, but its implication is much wider. So why should historians or philologists or scholars interested in knowledge formation read this book, even if they do not work on the Bible? Is codex, in your view, best understood as a case study for something far more beyond New Testament studies and other academic disciplines?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

I would say yes, yes. Or at least that's my wishes. I really hope that of course this is a very focused study on a specific codex in a specific field, but I hope that other disciplines and scholars from other fields could also. I would not say that learn from that, but at least get some inspiration from it. I could think of maybe two things. One is that for whatever research or fields we are in, either that historians or philology, or more body in the sociology of knowledge, for instance, we better not to take the tradition of the discipline for granted. That okay, this definition, it's forever so the same or this idea of certain things is the same in the 19th century as in the 20th and the 21st century. I would say that if we could have the awareness to look back into our tradition in the sense that we know there's some continuity between the past and the present, but there should also be some discontinuity in the place that how we know it's the differences place at different places between the past scholarship and ourselves. The second thing I would propose is that we could reflect upon our own positionality and are perhaps privileged in the 21st century what we have attained as scholars nowadays we have Internet, we have much more assets than maybe the past scholarship gather together about data, about information, and we have all the technology to help us go through. So this is our privileged position, but also it's our position. How could we be aware of ourselves? I think one thing to start with is to look back into history and to see where does this tradition come from and also where do we stand nowadays. And maybe if I could say that where should we go as an inclusive we that as a. Yeah, scholars together scholarly community, where should we go towards the future? Perhaps that if I could achieve this to inspire or at least to have some case study to illustrate to my fellow researchers, I would be very appreciated.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much. We really Appreciate you and your scholarship as well. Before we end, I want to ask one question. What are you working on now? What. What research are you doing?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Yes. Oh, thank you. Yes. As Amisa said in the beginning, I. I'm always interested in manuscripts. So my next project is still on manuscripts, but in another kind of manuscript. So I'm currently thinking of a project. It's an intersection between religion and technology in the 19th century. So it's kind of what I left at the end of my PhD project. It ends in the 19th century. So that would be the starting point of my next project. And also I would like to look into a specific type of manuscript that has different layers called pollen fests, and also the use of chemical material onto those pollen fests. So it would be something similar to my PhD project to a certain extent that it's not only about those manuscripts, those codices, but it's about stories, stories surrounding the manuscript that house scholars use and perhaps misuse their power, their privilege, their material resources onto those manuscript. And also, what's the aftermath, the reaction of the public upon this scholarly engagement of biblical and religious manuscripts? That's what I could say for now about this new project.

[Amisa]

Sounds fascinating. I think there will be another book coming up from that project soon and perhaps we can talk about it at another good time when it's ready. I hope I'm not giving you any pressure.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Sure, anytime.

[Amisa]

Do you have any final words for our listeners?

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

Not really. I really appreciate that, Amisha, you host this open space to critically and deeply engage with my book. And I hope that this podcast would be of some interest to the listeners. And because this is an open access book, so if you want, please pick it up, download it and give it a try.

[Amisa]

Thank you so much, Dr. Antini, for joining us on New Books next week and for listeners from Erasmus to Miles, as Dr. Antonian has told us, is open access. It was published by the crowd in 2024 and it rewards careful reading. So please get a copy and you enjoy reading it. And thanks for listening.

[Dr. Nan Tingyi]

My pleasure.

[New Books Network Host]

Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. We are an academic podcast network with the mission of public education. If you liked this episode, please share it with a friend and rate us on your preferred podcast platform. You can browse all of our episodes on our website newbooksnetwork.com Connect with us on Instagram and BlueSky with the handle NW BooksNetwork and subscribe to our weekly Substrac newsletter at newbooksnetwork.substack.com to get episode recommendations straight to your inbox.