Bart Ehrman is the author of the equally feared and revered book
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The book is feared, of course, by evangelical Christians who feel that Ehrman is mounting an attack on the doctrine of inspiration, while the book is revered by skeptics and critics who have no fondness for such doctrines.
Here is the basic situation with the New Testament. We have tens of thousands of copies of the New Testament documents, and most of those, of course, are copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, not to mentio n translations into other languages like Coptic, Syriac and so on. Sometimes a copyist made a mistake early on, so we have five thousand copies that read one way and five thousand that read another way. The task of manuscript criticism is to determine which version is more likely to be authentic, or at least older, than its variants.
This is the field that Ehrman is working in. In
Misquoting Jesus, he analyzes several passages that are either in doubt, certainly different from what was originally written, or inserted entirely. One more well-known instance is the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. It's everyone's favorite Bible story, but it just isn't in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and the first time it appears, it appears in a margin.
So what is the deal with the story? There are a few possibilities. Perhaps it was an oral tradition passed down and later inserted so it wouldn't be lost. Perhaps it belonged to another writing that was rejected but that story retained. Perhaps it was just made up. The interpretation of the facts is up for discussion, but the fact remains that the story isn't there in the best copies we have of John.
And this is the value of Bart Ehrman's work for the church. Ehrman studied under Bruce Metzger, who is probably the world's most knowledgeable New Testament scholar. But Ehrman and Metzger, while agreeing 100% on the facts, diverge notably in their interpretation of the facts. Metzger sees what Ehrman sees (Metzger was the one who pointed it out to Ehrman), but Metzger is a Christian while Ehrman is decidedly agnostic.
But for some reason, the churches haven't been reading Metzger, and Metzger doesn't get interview spots on Comedy Central. (He's pretty dry, honestly.) But the church needs to read Ehrman. Why?
- The church needs to understand how the Bible is put together.
- The church needs to understand how to think critically about textual issues in the Bible.
- The church needs to understand that the Resurrection is not in the oldest version of Mark, and discuss what that means.
- The church needs to understand why someone like Ehrman reaches the conclusions he does.
But we don't need to come to the same conclusions that Ehrman does. In most places I do not. Ehrman is a friend to the church to the degree that he can become a discussion partner, forcing us into places we would not otherwise go, forcing us to examine the story behind our story. God knows we're not going there unprovoked.
Do you feel you know enough about the Bible, its history and its origins to make your own conclusions? What is your reaction to the idea that some of our fondest Bible stories were perhaps not in the original texts?
True
Comments (39)
You're spouting nonsense. We've had Bibles as far back as the Council of Nicea, even tho they weren't translated into English 'til the Reformation. Nothing has been changed because God preserves His Word. Anyone who reads an author who promulgates this nonsense is putting his eternal soul in danger for the sake of what? Understanding why an atheist doesn't believe the Bible? Waste of time.
Excellent post! The author of this post is one of the few and far between Christians I actually like.
This is the exact reason I left Christianity because of the proponents telling me the bible was infallible. Doesn't take long to figure out that it is not once you dive in and study as hard as I have done. Once I find out that I have been lied to or my intelligence has been insulted you better pack a lunch along side your 357 magnum because I am coming after you and I am very very strong physically and mentally.
If the bible was infallible I would follow it to a T! It would help the christian cause tremendously if they would just admit that the book is fallible and just say something like "we think it is a great philosophy".
People outside the church like me who study philosophy, psychology, epistemology, linguistics, and various other disciplines are far from stupid and it ruins the churches credibility when making ridiculous claims about how God operates in a false attempt to monopolize and control.
@Freeinchains@xanga - The author of this post could kick your ass in an IQ test.
Hey this is great.
We do indeed need to know about these things, and how agnostics and others feel about them. I guess to answer your questions, I would initially probably say yes (I feel I know the Bible pretty well). Then no (but the Bible in its original texts? I don't know that), and then wait. It made me realize that the reason I know what I know is because I know the God who helps me. And that thing of the inner witness, too... 
I would like to point out that much of the scepticism and doubt on the Bible has come about in the last few hundred years. Though gnostism and a few others have thier roots as far back as the 3rd century, I think. It seems its been accelerating in the 21st century though! I know many don't like 'traditions', but heritage in faith is not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't mean that we can get by without our own faith in God, though!
It's important to understand our history as Christians, especially that of our own spiritual text. I always feel that, compared to other religions, Christians are always so woefully uninformed about their own history. We shouldn't be afraid of being informed. There's nothing wrong with admitting we aren't perfect. I wish others could understand and accept that.
For me, acknowledging that the Bible isn't 100% God's word hasn't harmed my faith in God either. It has helped me shape my faith my own way so that I don't have to worry about whether my beliefs strictly follow the guidelines of the Bible (especially considering that some guidelines are archaic and ridiculous).
@ChevalierSeingal@datingish - It would help the christian cause
tremendously if they would just admit that the book is fallible and
just say something like "we think it is a great philosophy".
I agree with this so much, it hurts. Adhering to the notion that, after so many years, the Bible is perfect and without error is absurd. There are some good things in there about peace and love, but seriously, there's bound to be some mistranslated, misplaced, manipulated, omitted garble in there somewhere.
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - Thank you!
All that Bart Ehrman states in his book is severely misguided. His claims that the texts are corrupt and that things that are currently in the scriptures are things that "Christians don't want you to know" are huge stretches of the imagination. Any Christian with a good study bible can see in the notes various textual variants as well as any spurious verses. Friend to the Church? Im sorry brother! I just dont get that statement. His aim in to eliminate us. Not help us understand our text better. And he is lying to achieve that goal.
In the end. The few verses that are in question pose "zero" threat to the faith that is Christianity today. When asked if the faith of the Church is different than the one the earliest Christians followed in his recent debate with Dr. James White he was forced to admit "No". The idea that we can not ever know what the original texts said is a bit of a false question. The reality is that we have an "over abundance" of information regarding the scriptural writings. The best way to picture this would be to state that if the scriptures were a 1,000 piece puzzle we have a 1,010 piece set.
The church does not need a deceiver like Ehrman. They need to stop being lazy and do the work of examining the text themselves or put the hard questions to their Pastors or Priests. If anyone would like a look at a critique of his latest book go here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrdQuk1Jwk
Grace and peace!
~Michael
No one needs to read Ehrman.
As posted on your site:
Bart Ehrman doesn't interest me. I understand your notion of calling him a friend of the church, but I think I'd have to respectfully disagree. I agree with William Willimon's take on Ehrman as presented in his review of another Ehrman book called "God's Problem." My denomination loves Ehrman's type (and Marcus Borg's) too much.
@ChevalierSeingal@datingish - It would help the christian cause
tremendously if they would just admit that the book is fallible and
just say something like "we think it is a great philosophy".
If you really believe that, you have no idea of what the Christian cause is about.
If the Christian cause was about seeking your approval and gaining your respect, you'd be onto something. But it's not, so you aren't. The Bible may have some "mistakes" or questionable texts,thus making it fallible, but reducing the Bible to a "great philosophy" does no justice to the cause of Christ.
________________________________
But as far as the original post, I agree wholeheartedly.
@subSacred@xanga - Thank you for admitting the bible has "mistakes", "thus making it fallible". I could give a flying rat's ass about your "solid" sand based opinion!
Can you spell INCONGRUENT???
I love Bart Ehrman! I met him at an SBL conference. He's well-known for writing all those "orthodox corruption" type books--well, maybe he just writes the same book over and over again--but he's actually a well-respected scholar in the biblical studies discipline. For example he did the translation and commentary for both volumes of the apostolic fathers in the Loeb Classical Library series.
this book is on my must-have list. and it's awesome to think that an agnostic knows more about Christian history than the average Christian... only because i'm agnostic, though. if i was still Christian, i'd find it super depressing.
I left this comment also on your site. - "I've heard that the story of the woman
caught in adultery is mentioned in the anti-Nicene Fathers. Have you
heard that or have any info on it?"
Metzger is pretty dry.
That being said, I once had a job where my task was solely to go through ancient texts, exegeses, and commentaries and fiddle around with some software. However, even though it wasn't my job to read all of it, I did end up reading a lot. I came to the conclusion that the Bible is just another compilation of ancient texts, and while I think the philosophies can certainly serve a purpose, and the stories are a good base learning point, I don't think it is without fault. I don't know how anybody *could* say the translations are without fault- it's thousands of years old! There was bound to be some discrepancies here and there, and that's ok. As long as we can admit that, and not be bullheaded about things, it's all good.
@ChevalierSeingal@datingish - No need to get nasty.
The Bible being fallible yet Christ being the only way is only incongruent by the standards of your own presumptions.
When you drop presumptions, a fallible Bible doesn't reduce Christianity to just a good philosophy, even using your logic.Aside from that, the main claims Christ made, which make up the foundation of the cause of Christianity, are not the texts in question, nor have they ever been.
@subSacred@xanga - lmao! You cannot even take a shit in the morning without using "standards of your own presumptions"!
"Devastating" rebuttal!
Erhman just digs up 'dirt' that bible scholars have known for the past 200 years and tries to make it his own. We've always known that the 'woman committing adultery' is known as a floating pericope...aka, it's from an oral tradition of Jesus that didn't really find a home. Not only is it not controversial, it makes perfect sense. In most bible versions, it's bracketed off just to show that it is a floating pericope. The mark thing too.
He does 'challenge' people to dig deeper but at the same time his text is lined with his strong agnostic presumptions. Most Christians aren't equipped with textual analytical skills and reading Ehrman gives you 'some' methods but in the most skewed ways possible.
The biggest problem with Ehrman's writing and many others is that they aren't 'satisfied' until they disprove something and come to conclusions only when they are able to make the 'historical Jesus' look bad. Using their very same methods, it doesn't take too much effort to come up with VERY VERY different conclusions about the text that pretty much make what they say kinda silly.
I hardly recommend Ehrman as an everyday reading for the average Christian. His work has value but only for those serious bible scholars who desire to look at a RANGE of different sources on textual criticism and not take his as authoritative.
The theory that one person made a wrong copy and then it became thousands of wrong copies is kinda silly. It's an attempt to basically say 'hey look, there's no way the bible is accurate'. If you really want to seek the 'truth', then please don't ignore the manuscript evidence.http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
People really desperately don't want the bible to be accurate because if it's accurate...then though the news is good, it's ridiculously hard to surrender ourselves to God and admit we're sinners deserving of Hell. Thankfully, the bible is true and that by the grace of God who sent his only son to die on that cross we are saved if we believe and put our trust in Him.
Too bad God didn't quite have the power to preserve these texts fully without dispute.
Since the creator of the universe wrote a holy "accurate" book you would think he would be wise enough to leave less chips to grind then "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".
Sorry I must be using my brain again how "sinful" of me. Oops I mean "standards of your own presumptions", I wouldn't want the 12 year old's to think I wasn't edumacated! See that can't even spell educated correctly.
P.S I pray nobody does a Google search of the term "bible contradictions" since we know that evil Satan dude controls the entire world wide web.
God is an atheist.
A good thought provoking blog.
There are "three types of proof", doctrinal proof, theoretical proof, and actual proof. Of the three, actual proof is the most important. A simple way of putting this might be that if a doctrine states that 2+2 = 4 and one person theorizes that 2+2 actually equals 3 while another says it equals 7, both theories should be tossed aside when your experience also tells you that 2+2=4. Any doctrine can be easily interpreted in different ways. Without actual proof, arguments over doctrine become brittle. That many dismiss the present and say proof of their belief will be seen only in the next life is very convenient but most of the confusion in today's world is a direct effect of this type of erroneous thinking. The mindset that "you might argue with me today but when we die I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell" can be used to justify any behavior and end any real discussion. One can say that this way of thinking doesn't solve the worlds' problems and leave it at that but actually this way of thinking causes the worlds' problems. Suicide bombers are indoctrinated to believe that because of their final act they will go to heaven and be granted dozens of virgins. Nobody can prove or disprove that belief but we can prove that their actions leave casualties and pain in the hearts of loved ones behind. That is the actual proof of the beliefs of those extremists.
@MC_Shann@xanga - Excellent video exposing Ehrman! I have only watched half of it so far, and will watch the rest after work today. Thanks for the link!
Greetings, friend!
I disagree with Ehrman. When Jesus spoke to the Apostles, saying, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" (John 16:13-15), he was also ultimately speaking to the Church. There were many spurious "gospels" and books that were being circulated throughout the Church. Each of these books was claiming some kind of apostolic authority and endorsement. The Church met in Ecumenical Council (Nicea, I believe; c. 325) and through prayer, discussion, testimony and examination, the Church rendered a decision which we now know as the canon of scripture, the books that the Church believes to be inspired scripture. They did this in the belief that what Jesus had promised was true AND that he was faithful to his promise - that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (and also that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the Church what God was saying; also in John16:13-15). There is nothing inherently with asking questions (the motive of the heart is what matters), but when we call into question the validity and trustworthiness of the Bible, we also call into question the validity and trustworthiness of the Church. And when we call into question the validity and trustworthiness of the Church, we also call into question the validity and trustworthiness of Jesus Christ himself. It comes down to this: no matter what the evidence says, who do you trust, Jesus or Ehrman?
the author starts out from a very biased view....not something i like at all....if you are researching something and you have preconceived notions, you are going to leave out things that disagree and only put in the things that agree with your opinon.
@ChevalierSeingal@datingish -
Sorry if my words were too big.
By standards of your own presumption I meant: You find facts/ideas that only support what you want to believe, and you find that to be sufficient.You then use these as a basis to tear down what others believe to be true, either ignoring or not bothering to look at any other facts or ideas.
Yes, Google search...talk about accurate research. Bible contradictions? I actually have Google searched that in the past, and you have to dig really deep through the results before you find any hint of valid contradictions and not just childish crap.
Okay, I can not wait to hear what dirty swear words you will shock and offend my Christian ears with next.