Bart Ehrman came to no longer believe the New Testament to be the “inspired word of God.” He states (on more than one occasion), “If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture?”[3] Throughout “Misquoting Jesus,” Ehrman attempts to prove his thesis that the current New Testament is an inaccurate depiction of the first-century writings by making two primary claims: First, the text has changed over the centuries, due to accidental mistakes in copying the New Testament writings. Second, the text has changed over the centuries, due to purposeful changes in copying the New Testament writings. Multiplying these two issues by fifteen centuries (from the time of the original writings to the invention of the printing press), and we absolutely cannot be sure that what we call “the letters of Paul” or “the four Gospels” are the actual words Paul and the Gospel writers wrote down, so he alleges. To his credit, Bart Ehrman gives numerous examples to illustrate these two claims. However, the ultimate problems I had with “Misquoting Jesus” is that I found Ehrman to be disingenuous with many of his examples, and I also found him to be unnecessarily provocative on numerous occasions. I will illustrate these two main problems as I journey through “Misquoting Jesus.”
ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT
In his introductory chapter, after sharing his journey from the faith, Ehrman begins to give examples of what he views as contradictions in the New Testament text. After all, according to the laws of logic, if something is incoherent (or is lacking internal consistency), then it is automatically not true. In Ehrman’s examples, his disingenuousness is immediately shown. He states, “When Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal. 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)—maybe that is a difference.”[4] The problem with Ehrman’s claim here is that if you keep reading the Galatians passage, Paul does state in verse 18 (two verses later!) that “three years later I went up to Jerusalem…” A closer investigation of the Acts passage also reveals that Luke never claims that “the first thing” Paul did after Damascus was go to Jerusalem. But rather Luke states, “When he (Paul) came to Jerusalem…” It is always good to bear in mind that Luke is compressing three decades of the Christian movement, following the resurrection of Jesus, into 28 chapters! Ehrman is a smart man and understands this well. This, of course, is why I view statements like this as disingenuous.
Another example is Ehrmans’ analysis of the mustard seed illustration by Jesus: “Maybe, when Jesus says later in Mark that the mustard seed is ‘the smallest of all seeds on the earth,’ maybe I don’t need to come up with a fancy explanation for how the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds when I know full well it isn’t.”[5] To begin, Jesus in fact does not say that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds “on the earth,” although he does state that, “it is smaller than all the seeds upon the soil” (Mark 4:31 NASB). This is an important distinction, because which is more likely true – that Jesus was giving a botany lesson to the farmers and workers of the field listening to his message, or that Jesus was giving a localized illustration that they would have indeed understood? Clearly, the latter is true, because the Bible regularly uses everyday terminology to convey simple truths. If the local weatherman claims that the sun will rise at 6:36am tomorrow, should I label him “errant” in his claim because he has shared something that is not true in a different part of the world or because he is literally not telling the truth by claiming that the sun will actually “rise”? Of course we would not label such a claim as “errant.” Likewise, Jesus’ statement would have been something that any Palestinian farmer listening to him would have easily understood, because (in that part of the world – in their world), the mustard seed was indeed the smallest of all seeds. To compound this point, Jesus even uses the phrase “…a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field” (Matt. 13:31 NASB, italics mine). Clearly, this is a local teaching using language that (in its context) makes perfect sense and is perfectly true.
COPIES OF COPIES
One of Bart Ehrman’s most oft-quoted points is that the multiple and numerous generations of copies we have of the New Testament text makes it untrustworthy. “Those (letters) that were produced in multiple copies were not all alike, for the scribes who copied texts inevitably made alterations in those texts—changing the words they copied either by accident (via a slip of the pen or other carelessness) or by design (when the scribe intentionally altered the words he copied).”[6] The result is 200,000-400,000 variants (or differences between copies) among the 5,700 Greek manuscripts we have of the New Testament. What are we to make of all of these variants? Can our New Testament be trusted? Ehrman does not think so, but there are several reasons I will give why our New Testament, in fact, can be trusted. Moreover, I will review some of Ehrman’s examples and provocative claims.
What about all of those variants? “Most of these 400,000 variations stem from differences in spelling, word order, or the relationships between nouns and definite articles—variants that are easily recognizable and, in most cases, virtually unnoticeable in translations!”[7] There are numerous examples why most of these 400,000 variants (which is a high figure given in this discussion) are mostly insignificant to the New Testament reader today. First, the vast majority of these differences involve spelling and nonsense errors. To illustrate, if there are 100 spelling differences in 1,000 manuscripts, that represents 100,000 variants! For example, the name John in spelled in Greek as either Ioannes or Ioanes, and both were written in various Greek manuscripts. Even so, this would be considered a “variant.” Also, in Greek, there is what is called the “moveable nu.” This is similar to the indefinite article “a” in English. Depending on the next word, you would either write “a” or “an.” This variation makes no difference to the meaning though. “It is so insignificant that most textual critics simply ignore the variants involving a moveable nu when transcribing the words of a manuscript. It affects nothing.”[8] Furthermore, scribes would sometimes make nonsense mistakes, which were easy to recognize. For example, in Greek, the word for “Lord” (kurios) looks similar to the word for “and” (kai). Due to the monotony of transcribing a text, a mental lapse has occurred and scribes have interchanged these words. As you can imagine, this change (in either direction) causes passages to make no sense in context. “In such cases, the wording that the scribe bungled is easy to reconstruct.”[9] There is also the use of the definite article with proper names in Greek. The Greek New Testament will sometimes have “the” in front of proper names, so you will find in Greek “Paul” and sometimes “the Paul.” This fact creates a multitude of additional variants, but it is still translated in English the same way (of course, without the definite article). Finally, in Greek, the word endings give meaning to a sentence, not necessarily the word order (although the word order helps us understand the author’s emphasis). This is very different than the English language. Take a look at the following example of several English sentences:
· “God loves Paul.”
· “The God loves the Paul.”
· “The God loves Paul.”
· “God loves the Paul.”
· “Paul loves God.”
· “The Paul loves the God.”
· “The Paul loves God.”
· “Paul loves the God.”
· “Loves God Paul.”
· “Loves the God the Paul.”
· “Loves the God Paul.”
· “Loves God the Paul.”
· “Loves Paul God.”
· “Loves the Paul the God.”
· “Loves the Paul God.”
· “Loves Paul the God.”
· “God Paul loves.”
· “The God the Paul loves.”
· “The God Paul loves.”
· “God the Paul loves.”
· “Paul God loves.”
· “The Paul the God loves.”
· “The Paul God loves.”
· “Paul the God loves.”
The meaning varies among most of these examples (and in many cases, the meaning is nonsense). Interestingly though, this meaning variation is true for the English language, but it is not true for the Greek language. “As long as ‘God’ is in the nominative case and ‘Paul’ is in the accusative case [verified by the word ending], all of the above sentences mean, “God loves Paul.”[10] So even if the word order differs between Greek manuscripts (which is called "transposition"), the meaning is still the same! The rules of the Greek language protect the meaning much better than what we experience with the English language (where the word order is an essential aspect of the meaning).
One of Ehrman’s points in his analysis of the copyist’s job is that it is hard work. There is no doubt. In the first century, Greek was written in all lowercase letters and there were no spaces between words. “The words godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere).”[11] This helpful (and amusing) example illustrates the challenge of properly interpreting a first-century Greek text. For me, it also illustrates the single greatest problem I had with “Misquoting Jesus”: Bart Ehrman points out the variants (and therefore the potential loss of meaning) of certain New Testament passages without ever recognizing the parallel teaching and passages, which are not likewise disputed and happen to remove this “loss” of meaning. He views potential problem areas (such as the given illustration above) without ever taking in consideration the context or clarifying passages that might makes sense of a "godisnowhere" kind of passage! I will provide numerous examples.
In his analysis of the Gospel of Mark and “an angry Jesus,” Ehrman makes the claim that verse 41 of chapter 1 was most likely originally written, “and becoming angry” Jesus reached out his hand and healed a leper. This reading, of course, differs from what our modern Bibles say that Jesus was “moved with compassion” (and not that he became angry). Even if we concede the point that his analysis is correct (and that the text should state that Jesus “became angry”), his conclusion is, nevertheless, outlandish and provocative. Erhman believes that this true understanding of Jesus’ healing of the leper should change our entire interpretation of the Gospel of Mark! With or without this other understanding of the healing of the leper, Timothy Paul Jones points out:
“This Gospel depicts Jesus as a passionate prophet, rapidly crisscrossing Galilee and Judea as he moves toward his impending encounter with a Roman cross. By the third chapter, Jesus has already upset so many religious leaders that they’re making plans to murder him (Mark 3:6). He becomes annoyed when people don’t trust him (Mark 3:5; 9:23). At the same time, Mark makes it clear that Jesus constantly feels compassion for downtrodden people (Mark 6:34; 8:2; 9:22-23). Based on evidence throughout the Gospel, either reading of the text would fit Mark’s presentation of Jesus. Understanding the text to declare that Jesus became angry does not significantly change my understanding of Mark’s Gospel.”[12]
Ehrman, irresponsibly in my opinion, attempts to convey Mark’s Jesus in this new way. Now Jesus “rebukes” and “throws out” the healed man (Ehrman believes this is now the best translation of the Greek in light of our “new” understanding). Although, if we desire consistency in translating the Greek, Jesus must have also “thrown out” the young girl’s parents just before he brings her back to life (see the end of Mark chapter 5). This, of course, is foolish (when looked at closely in context) and reveals the fallacy of this new, harsher portrayal of Jesus.
Ehrman also makes the claim that Luke 22:19-20, in which Jesus shares the symbol of the bread and wine at the Last Supper, was not in the original writing of Luke. Once again, even if we concede this point, these words of Jesus are still recorded in Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:22-25 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. “So, even if these clauses were missing from Luke’s original writing, this is not a case of ‘misquoting Jesus’ – it’s a passage that was already present in several other places, though perhaps not in Luke’s Gospel.”[13]
Ehrman also implies (in my opinion) that an expanded and fallacious version of 1 John 5:7-8 (which includes a teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity) exists to explicitly support this traditional teaching of the church. The expanded version states, “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”[14] He states, “Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly” (italics mine).[15] This is another example in which Ehrman is being unnecessarily provocative and disingenuous. First, this expanded version of 1 John 5:7-8 is not even in most modern English translations! Second, to state that the doctrine of the Trinity can only be inferred apart from this expanded passage is ignorant (at best) or dishonest (at worst). This critical review does not allow for an extensive apologetic of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I will nevertheless point out Jesus’ own words in what is commonly referred to as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (Matthew 28:19 NASB, italics mine). The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on this one expanded version of 1 John 5:7-8, especially since the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 explicitly affirmed this doctrine over a thousand years prior to the addition!
In Ehrman’s discussion of a probable change in 1 Timothy 3:16, he (once again) implies an unnecessary conclusion in light of parallel New Testament teaching. He states, “In 1 Timothy 3:16, where most later manuscripts speak of Christ as ‘God made manifest in the flesh,’ this early manuscript originally spoke, instead, of Christ ‘who was made manifest in the flesh’…The change that came to dominate the medieval manuscripts, then, was made in order to emphasize Jesus’s divinity in a text that was ambiguous about it, at best.”[16] Ehrman is implicitly undermining the divinity of Christ in the same way he undermined the doctrine of the Trinity. Once again, my modern translation did not even have this mistaken rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Furthermore, there are other passages of Scripture that affirm Jesus as God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 10:38; Colossians 1:15-17; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6; etc.). Ehrman, of course, fails to point this out.
There are also places where scribes, for the purpose of clarification, change the text. For example, Matthew 1:16 reads: “Jacob was the father of Joseph husband of Mary, out of whom Jesus—the one who is called the Messiah—was born” (NASB). “But, at some point, a copyist wanted to make certain readers understood that Jesus was virgin-born, so the scribe changed the verse to read, ‘Jacob was father of Joseph, to whom was betrothed the virgin Mary from who Jesus—the one who is called the Messiah—was born.’”[17] Even without this change, the remainder of Matthew 1 still affirms that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived (see vss. 18-25). However, this fact does not keep Ehrman from cynically stating that the issue of Mary’s virginity was “an important point for many early scribes!”[18] There are numerous other examples similar to these, in which Bart Ehrman draws conclusions from disputed texts containing variants, even though there are clear parallel teachings in other parts of the same writing, which remove these “scandalous” results.
CONCLUSION
In my reading of “Misquoting Jesus,” I found Bart Ehrman’s analysis of the trustworthiness of the New Testament letters to be unconvincing and cynical. This cynicism most exemplified itself in his conclusion. Ehrman states:
“For the more I studied, the more I saw that reading a text necessarily involves interpreting a text. I suppose when I started my studies I had a rather unsophisticated view of reading: that the point of reading a text is simply to let the text ‘speak for itself,’ to uncover the meaning inherent in its words. The reality, I came to see, is that meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves.”[19]
Ehrman seems to be stating that meaning cannot ultimately be found. In fact, when reading his entire conclusion, Ehrman seems to imply that written communication (in general) is an insufficient form of passing on knowledge! Even if I am overstating his point, at the very least, he is undermining our ability to be confident in any interpretation of an ancient work. Ehrman states, “[the scribes] changed scripture the way we all change scripture, every time we read it.”[20] That is a pretty extraordinary statement, and one I imagine that most textual critics would not agree with. As previously stated, Bart Ehrman is a self-ascribed “happy agnostic”; therefore, he more than likely has naturalistic presuppositions. With this being the case, it is easy to understand why Ehrman currently does not believe the New Testament writings to be the “inspired word of God.” As a matter of reason and analysis, I do believe the New Testament is reliable to share the true message of God. As a matter of faith, I also believe God fully inspired not only the composition of the original New Testament writings, but also their compilation and canonization, which has ultimately led to the New Testament text we have today. This entire process can only be explained with a supernatural explanation – one that a naturalist presupposition could never comprehend.
I have only scratched the surface responding to Bart Ehrman's claims in this book review. For a more exhaustive discussion on the reliability of the New Testament, I highly recommend Daniel Wallace's Reinventing Jesus. Also, Timothy Paul Jones does solid work in Misquoting Truth.
[1]Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 7.
[2]Ehrman, 9.
[3]Ehrman, 11.
[4]Ehrman, 10.
[5]Ehrman, 9-10.
[6]Ehrman, 46.
[7]Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 43.
[8]Daniel B. Wallace et al, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 56.
[9]Wallace, 57.
[10]Wallace, 58.
[11]Ehrman, 48.
[12]Jones, 72-73.
[13]Jones, 74.
[14]The expanded section is bolded, which was probably added some time in the 15th century.
[15]Ehrman, 81.
[16]Ehrman, 157.
[17]Jones, 56.
[18]Ehrman, 97.
[19]Ehrman, 216.
[20]Ehrman, 218.
No comments:
Post a Comment