Bart D. Ehrman and Misquoting Jesus
A recent comment, as well as a posting on Seeker's Digest, made me realize that I never got around to making more comments on my pick for last month's Book-of-the-Month. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman, is a fascinating look at how the text of the New Testament was altered over time and the questions this raises in regards to whether it contains the authentic words of Jesus—peace be upon him.
This latest work by Dr. Ehrman is written much more for the layman than his previous book on this topic, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, which is a much more dense and scholarly read. Indeed, Misquoting Jesus is a fascinating and captivating read that is accessible even to those with little or no knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament. As I said previously, "Not only does it give a general historical overview of the textual criticism of the New Testament, along with three glaring and in-depth examples of textual corruption, but it also contains an intriguing autobiographical account of Bart Ehrman's journey from being a naive Born-Again Christian to becoming a world-renowned scholar of Biblical manuscripts."
In this regard, I encourage everyone to listen to the recent interview [Duration: 38:26] with Bart Ehrman, which was conducted earlier this month by Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air", and read Did Jesus Really Say That? which is a recent interview with him that appeared in The Charlotte Observer. Since Bart Ehrman's early "Born Again" Christian faith was closely tied to the text of the New Testament, listening to him explain his path to agnosticism is somewhat disturbing, but hardly surprising.
For those of you who can't afford, can't wait or don't want, to purchase Misquoting Jesus, the essence of its discussion of the "three glaring and in-depth examples of textual corruption", which I mentioned above, can be found in the texts of Dr. Ehrman's Kenneth W. Clark Lectures, which he gave at Duke Divinity School in 1997. The transcripted texts of these two lectures, entitled Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies, can be found here and here. One of the most interesting of these rejoinders, and the most well-argued as well, is Ehrman's analysis in "Mark 1:41 and the Angry Jesus"—which can be found in the text of Lecture 1.
Also, I've taken the liberty to scan and post page 113 of Misquoting Jesus as another enticing sample, since it contains an interesting example of a textual variation in the New Testament text that relates directly to the divinity of Jesus—or lack thereof.
Again, I strongly encourage everyone—especially Jews, Christians, Muslims, students of comparative religion and other seekers of truth—to read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why in its entirety. Most certainly it will contain information and documentation of which you were heretofore unaware. Likewise, The Teaching Company has several [(1),(2),(3),(4)] courses by Bart D. Ehrman on various subjects related to Christianity. These excellent university-level lectures are available in several formats including VHS tape, audio CD and DVD, and provide a great way to educate oneself while commuting, exercising or simply in lieu of watching television. Since new copies of these courses might be a bit too expensive for some, experience has taught me that used copies of many of these courses can often be found, at quite a savings, on eBay.com.
Deen On...
Labels: Biblical Studies, Jesus Christ
posted by @ 10:40 AM
Comment Guidelines
15 comments
15 Comments:
After reading the book and listening to the interview, I just can't stop thinking, "Somebody needs to give da'wah to this man!"
I was wondering whether you´ve listened to the TTC tapes on the subject. Do you think the book adds material not covered in the lectures? Put another way, is it worth reading the book *after* having heard his TTC lectures?
I was wondering whether you´ve listened to the TTC tapes on the subject. Do you think the book adds material not covered in the lectures? Put another way, is it worth reading the book *after* having heard his TTC lectures?
Perhaps if you would worry about living according to Jesus' words, rather than intellectually bankrupt and dishonest arguments about whether or not someone has "misquoted" his words, you'd not be having the image problems your brethren are generating for you by burning embassies and flags, and threatening to deprive sick children of medicines just because they're made in "infidel" countries.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me."
Jesus said that.
What is interesting to me about Ehrman is that he denigrates fundamentalism and yet argues concerning the NT's credibility through a fundamentalist's understanding of the text. Ask yourself why Ehrman says nothing to a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox view of the Bible and it's Inspiration.
Perhaps the NT Gospels doesn't set out to "quote" Jesus at all, but to reveal him.
I already posted once but I don't see it up here,perhaps the editors have decided not to allow it.
Nevertheless,what I once said ,I will say again once more in brief.
The scholarship of Bart D. Ehrman is unaccectable to any faithful or conservative scholar.His views of things are typical of unbelievers who truly do not have faith but think they do,simply because they think they do.
This kind of thinking then can not be used in any way as an argument,the arguments are not unique and do not ultimatley lie upon fact but upon desire and choice,dictated by the will of the arbiter.The same thing can be done in many ways examining the Koran.
The problem with Michael's comment, above, is that it shows he's content to remain in the realm of unproven assertions and vague generalities. If Ehrman's scholarship is weak and shallow, then refute it. Post something that demonstrates in detail why his widely respected scholarly opinion is wrong. Demonstrate the flaws in Ehrman's thinking that led him, a once faithful Evangelical Christian, to begin questioning his faith and then eventually to abandoning it. Pointing out that he's now an "unbeliever" doesn't accomplish much unless you can refute his reasons for becoming one.
As Misquoting Jesus explains, as his knowledge about and expertise in New Testament manuscripts increased, his faith decreased. And unfortunately for Michael, much of the information that Ehrman presents in regards to the wide differences and variants amongst New Testament manuscripts are simply facts. Sure, there's a lot of room for subjective interpretation in how these variations are to be understood...and this is where Michael has his work cut out for him. He needs to demonstrate that Ehrman's interpretations and understanding of these NT mss are off the mark and then come up with a more solid interpretation that doesn't undermine the credibility of the Biblical text. However, keep in mind that Ehrman didn't get the reputation he has in his field by being a bumbling simpleton, so we won't be holding our breath…
I've done quite a bit of Googling, but I'm yet to find detailed refutations of Ehrman's scholarship. However, I have come across reviews of his work by conservative Christians who simply assert, without offering any proof, that Bart Ehrman "doesn't know what he's talking about" and other accusations ad nauseum. Anyone interested in reading false claims and empty assertions about Ehrman's book, just check out some of the one-star reviews of it on Amazon.com...in which numerous Evangelical Christians again demonstrate that denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
In the end, this should leave one with the feeling that the real story is that Ehrman's erudite studies have undermined the veracity of the Bible, hence the Christian faith, thus these believers feel the need to say something in response. However, since they can't refute Ehrman's arguments, they simply make empty accusations. Oh, how typical...
Also, the statement that "His views of things are typical of unbelievers who truly do not have faith but think they do, simply because they think they do" demonstrates that Michael hasn't actually read this book, since in it Dr. Ehrman openly admits that his detailed studying of the Bible caused him to lose his faith...thus he's now an agnostic.
So if Michael and his follow simpletons want to come across as educated thinkers who can actually formulate a proper response, and not just blind followers with their collective heads buried in the sand, they are going to have to come up with something more specific than vague accusations...since these just don't cut it. And before doing that, I suggest that Michael actually read Misquoting Jesus!
Sir or Madame,
The reasoon that I can say what I say is that I have heard the arguments and examined the data and come to a different conclusion.The fact is Mr Erhans conclusion are not neccessary but arbitrary left up to the will of the person,and the are very convenient for you ,since you have a desire(will)in all this.You cannot claim to be a neutral observer.So there is no problem with what I say,there is a problem for you and you will.As I said previously and I am glad you posted it,scholarship,so called at a certain point often menas the right to make things up,like interpreatation,and a faithful scholar will always choose the most faithful interpretation,whereas the unbeliever will choose the unbelieving one according to the dictates of his or her heart.
Again the same can be done with the Koran,I personally can speak of many errors in that book and many others can as well,and yet the difference will remain that you will always insist on another way of looking at it,with a more charitablbly disposed mind in defense,some of them may be true and some not.The ultimate point is that we must acknowledge the real differences between Christianity and Isalm and take it from there,period end of story,neither of us should bring in unbelievers no matter what their credentials,because they are often under some kind of delusion or weird antipathy.Do you not agree?
Lastly I would say,that we do not need to respond to a deceived persons gibberish because the imagination of man is unlimited in the numbe rof inventions it can make,when it is undisciplined by the faith,and so a Christian would be responding at the pleasure of every gainsayer,which is not our duty,we can reapond to a reasonable inquirer,not ones whose will is set against it,especialyy if that person thought he was a believer.You may i fyou choose,but what I say ,I say from experience.
So your wish and desire amount to nothing more than a that,you desire to vaunt Erhmans reputation,but according to whom? Liberal unbelievers and Muslims such as yourself?
If I am responsible for the unbelief of Mr. Erhman then are you responsible for the Ex Muslims who have left Islam and arew leaving it everyday.As an example of your hidden bias disguised as knowledge ,I would not expect to find this comment up on your site,but if you do allow it,then great.Ther is a ex muslim in my church and you will not be convincing him that you have truth in your religion,so I guess according to your logic built upon false premises,that unless you can convince him that proves you have no truth.What you fail to acknowledge in this day and age is that,so called scholarship is built upon doubt and Mr Erhman exhibits all the typical traits of a man who never had faith and he slowly realized that,to claim otherwise ,you also do not know or fail to understand that involved in al this is will,the pure good heart and will direct studies and the evil unbelieiving heart direct studies to their own respective ends,one to death and the other to life.I personally would recommend sir that you forskae you false hope in a proven false prophet and come to the tru Savior of the world and appointed Judge.If you have any personal questions I would be happy to answer them for you in a dialogue,and I am sure that in the end you yourself will see the light of Christ and the only true Gospel message of God proven to your satisfaction.Please communicate your desire
I am a christian who already knew this arguement to be true. That the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. What Bart Ehrman has demosntrated is his total misunderstanding of what the Bible is and how it came to be and for what purpose it was written. Most of the Bible was not written by God, but by men who were either inspired, told or autorized to tell their experience with God and His dealings with man. The problem comes with man and OUR inabilbity to express in words the perfect language of God. Even those who spoke directly with God had problems expressing in language what God was saying. That is why there were Prophets to correct and instruct. From the time of the creation, man has misinterpeted what God had spoken to man, and Prophets were sent to correct and continue to instruct. The New Testament is the continuance of God's direction to man and living proof that without divine direction through living prophets, authorized by God to speak in His name, both christians, agnostics and others will continue to argue what God was trying to say. Even if there were true Prophets on the earth today, most Christians would reject their proclomations just as some of the early scribes began to do and later the Chruch itself did. Mis quoting God and his son, Jesus began at the time of Jesus, after His death and resurrection and continues to this day by creeds of men. Bart D. Ehrman has recognized the faults of men, not of God. God truely has revealed and will continue to reveal his words to mankind for man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceds form the mouth of God. Most christians will not close their mouths but they have shut Gods mouth up by declaring, there is no more to be said as the Bible is complete, yet we must explain what he meant as it is too confusing for us to understand. Hypocrites for sure! God's perfect word needs their insight and explanation!
The problem with Ehrman's book, 'Misquoting Jesus', and what he doesn't bother telling his readers is that his supposed 'variants' or 'tampering with the text' are mostly spelling or grammatical errors and they do not effect any major doctrine or belief of the Christian Church. If a word is mispelled in the manuscript, that counts as a variance. If, for example, the pronoun 'he' is substituted for 'Lord' or 'Jesus' or visa versa, it's considered a variance. There are not mistakes or variances that are of any significance. To pawn off this book to an unsuspecting world and try and diminish the faith of those who believe in Christ and the New Testament is both deceptive and beguiling. There is a basic thesis that has been around since 1707: "No Cardinal or essential doctrine is altered by any textual variant that has plausibility of going back to the original." The evidence has not changed to this day. These so-called 'variances' have been known by Bible Scholars and Manuscript experts for years, and they know what I have just said, that there are no significant variances. I think before we accept just anything that anyone says in a book you need to check it out. This is eternity we're dealing with. Thanks for letting me express my views.
David
Someone mentioned that should we disagree with Bard D. Ehrman that we need to come up with arguments as to why he is wrong and who could refute his scholarship. No one is doubting Mr. Ehrman's education or his position. But there are many, many Bible Scholars and Biblical Historians who have serious disagreements with him on his conclusions because of the way he came to them. Dr. Craig Evans in his masterful book 'Fabricating Jesus' addresses all of the claims of Ehrman in just as scholarly manner as Erhrman or any other liberal. Once again I would like to point out that most all of the 'variances' or supposed discrepancies that Dr. Ehrman points out are either in spelling or grammar which in no way affects any major Biblical doctrine. Bible Scholars and theologians, for years, have known about these variances and have never been least concerned about them because THEY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT. Also, you cannot use mid second century or as late as the fourth century pseudo gospels like 'The Gospel of Thomas', the supposed secret Gospel of Mark (which has been proven to be a forgery by the way), or any other gnostic gospel to discredit the earlier gospels of the Synoptics or the Gospel of John. The four gospels were written within a generation the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were written either by men who actually knew Jesus personally (Matthew and John), or they were close associates of those who did know Him (Mark and Luke). The later 'gospels' are gnostic in nature and were repudiated by the church of the first century particularly in the writings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John. In his entire book, Ehrman does not really 'prove' anything except his own bias. Please post this so that people will at least have SOME OF THE FACTS straight. Thank you for allowing me to express my view point.
Dave
In regards to the "variances" [sic], David says "THEY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT"...which just seems to prove that he hasn't read the book in question. In the final chapter of Misquoting Jesus, Bart D. Ehrman says [pages 207-208]: "The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it. To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us. It would be wrong, however, to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us."
This paragraph serves as an excellent summary of the entire book. If you want to know the proofs that are behind these scholarly conclusions, then I suggest you actually read the book.
In regards to the books that allegedly refute Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, well they're certainly not scholarly, but typical apologetic slop. For example, read this review of Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and this and this review of Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. It's really sad that people are so brain-washed and sloppy in their pursuit for truth that they actually allow themselves to be duped by the weak argumentation in books like this. Actually, it becomes rather apparent that they're not looking for the truth, but rather to have their faith and scripture confirmed--in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary--so they buy books that simply tell them what they want to hear. Very sad...
Although I mentioned them in the original post, here are links to two articles by Bart D. Ehrman that are based on lectures, entitled Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies, which he gave back in 1997:
Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text
Lecture Two: Text and Transmission: The Historical Significance of the "Altered" Text
Enjoy...
Post a Comment
<< Home