I just finished reading Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman, a book about the history of the written New Testament. The author, in his concluding statements, made a very interesting point that seems in line with the current topic of this blog. I will quote it here. I hope that you are not derailed by this information, but rather encouraged to reach for the living, present Holy Spirit of God who, as Jesus said, was given to guide us into all truth. As the years went by and I continued to study the text of the New Testament, I gradually became less judgmental toward the scribes who changed the scriptures they copied. Early on, I suppose I was a bit surprised, maybe even scandalized, by the number of changes these anonymous copyists of the text had made in the process of transcription, as they altered the words of the texts, putting it in their own words rather than the words of the original authors. But I softened my view of these transcribers as I slowly came to realize that what they were doing with the text was not all that different from what each of us does every time we read a text. 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. If texts could speak for themselves, then everyone honestly and openly reading a text would agree on what the text says. But interpretations of texts abound, and people in fact do not agree on what the texts mean. This is obviously true of the texts of scripture: simply look at the hundreds or even thousands of ways people interpret the book of Revelations, or consider all of the different Christian denominations, filled with intelligent and well-meaning people who base their views of how the church should be organized and function on the Bible, yet all of them coming to radically different conclusions. Think back on the last time you were involved in a heated debate in which the Bible was invoked, and someone volunteered an interpretation of a scripture verse that left you wondering, How did he/she come up with that? We hear this all around us in discussions of homosexuality, women in the church, abortion, divorce, and even American foreign policy, with both sides quoting the same Bible—and sometimes even the same verses—to make their case. Is this because some people are simply more willful or less intelligent than others and can’t understand what the text plainly says? Surely not—surely the texts of the New Testament are not simply collections of words whose meaning is obvious to any reader. Surely the texts have to be interpreted to make sense, rather than simply read as if they can divulge their meanings without the process of interpretation. And this, of course, applies not just to the New Testament documents, but to texts of every kind. Why else would there be such radically different understandings of the US Constitution, or Das Kapital, or Middlemarch? Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted, and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their own knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the texts “in other words.” Once readers put a text in other words, however, they have changed the words. This is not optional when reading; is it not something you can choose not to do when you peruse a text. The only way to make sense of a text is to read it, and the only way to read it is by putting it in other words, and the only way to put it in other words is by having other words to put it into, and the only way you have other words to put it into is that you have a life, and the only way to have a life is by being filled with desires, longings, needs, wants, beliefs, perspectives, worldviews, opinions, likes, dislikes—and all the other things that make human beings human. And so to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text. That’s what scribes of the New Testament did.
About Me
- John Barnts
- If you would like to get on a Frank Update e-mail list, send your request to johnb(at)villagechristian.org. You may also use that address for private questions or comments.
12 comments:
What did the Spirit say to you about this book?
He told me that you should read it.
I've got a friend who answers e-mails for Josh McDowell's apologetic group and also mentors Christian graduate students and faculty at UC Irvine. He's become a bit of an expert on Ehrman. I'll see if I can get him to ring in on this...
One problem with Ehrman that is evident from that little blurb you quoted are his obvious commitments to postmodernism/deconstructionism. Basically, deconstructionism practices what is known as "a hermeneutic of suspicion". For more about this, read my blog on postmodernism:
http://theorganon.blogspot.com/2006/08/brief-history-of-postmodernism-and-its.html
But as far as what my own research has yielded, Ehrman would be misleading (at best) in his claims that there are too many "disparate texts."
What's ironic about this is that the superabundance of early NT texts has been the major argument AGAINST critics in defense of the authenticity and historicity of the NT.
Just because there are so many different copies (with admitted variations), it certainly doesn't follow that scholars can't figure out what the original texts SAID, even when the original copies haven't been preserved. (they haven't) Similarly, there are no original copies (and VERY few manuscripts) of the works of Plato or Aristotle, and yet scholars are pretty secure in their knowledge of these philosophers and what they were saying.
Shakespeare's plays are another example. Some plays have both a "folio" and a "quarto" edition, and sometimes more than one of each for a given play. The relevant question that bears application to NT scholarship is: can we determine/construct Shakespeare's earliest edition of the play? And the answer is "yes."
So there are more copies of the NT than there are words in the NT...so what? I fail to see how that would be shocking, let alone, cause for concern.
You could say the same thing about Dr. Seuss books.
The fact is, New Testament scholars have been able to determine with over 90% certainty what the original texts ("autographs") said. Further, within the small percentage of passages where the precise words/wording etc. is utterly in question, no major Christian doctrine hangs in the balance.
Seriously, Frank, did you do any homework, with eyes open and closed, on this before you posted it? I'm guessing that you are trying to undermine "bibliolatry", but my question was not tongue-in-cheek, for once. Did you ask the Holy Spirit about this? Wouldn't that be in keeping with what you have presented so far?
The book was simply a historical account of the search for the most accurate NT texts. It was interesting, but didn't seem to have an agenda beyond challenging Christians to be careful with verse-by-verse, word-by-word analysis of NT scripture. We don't seem to mind that we have many different English translations, so I don't see why it would be too alarming that there are many different Greek texts.
Eric, I didn't say there are as many copies as words, I said there are as many errors as words, but most of them are minor and don't change the meaning of the passage in question. In fact, the only times the meanings seem to have been changed are when the copyists would add or subtract words as if to respond to various heresies of the day. There are also changes based on cultural issues that could possibly begin as notes in the margin and eventually creep into the text itself. These changes are noticed by either being absent from other Greek texts, or sounding like a different writer in tone or word usage. He cited many interesting examples.
While I was reading Josephus, I recognized one of these kinds of insertions right away. It was clear that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but then, when he was writing of the time of Christ there was suddenly this one sentence citing Jesus as the true Messiah and son of God, or something like that. Completely out of place, but in the back of the book are a list of church fathers who used the quote from Josephus to support their belief in Jesus as the son of God.
Despite similar additions in the NT manuscripts, none of the examples that I read changed the basic tenents the of Christian faith, except when it came to issues like the Trinity (some passages of some copies were noticeably altered to make Jesus and God the same person because the text seemed to contradict this) or the role of women in the church, or verses that would seem to lean away from a Gnostic or Docetic view of Christ. (I think Ehrman is sympathetic to Gnostics by the way)
Rather than being alarmed or hesitant, you should just read the book for yourself. It's harmless. Really. For me, it was just an interesting historical study.
Apparently, this study of differences in Greek copies is not new to the church, but something our modern church has seemed to ignore. I always just thought there was one Greek bible, but a lot of English translations. I had no idea there were thousands of Greek Bibles, some considered more "orthodox" than others. And the oldest are not necessarily the most accurate. Ehrman even suggests that the Greek text used for the King James Version is recognized as less accurate than the one used for the NIV. Interesting.
And you're right Eric, in most cases, the original intention of the author is able to be worked out. Using the same methods of investigation, it is also possible to see where people have inserted text and changed words, always for reasons that they felt was honorable to God and Christianity.
No one (as far as I could tell) just made something up, though it appears the story of the woman caught in adultery was added much later than the book of John was written. As if it was just a story that was common in verbal tradition but never actually in the book. Strange.
Anyway, if you take that story out of the Bible, it doesn't change who Jesus is or what he came to do. I guess my point is that we should, as Jesus said, let the scriptures bear witness of him, but go to HIM to have life (and direction, and truth).
That was the point of this blog.
I'm sure that Ehrman is not a spiritual person, though he did claim to be Born Again. I think his research has created a lot of doubt in him. However, because of my personal experience with God and seeing how the Holy Spirit has taken me to scripture time and time again, I am in no way discouraged or put off by this man's concerns. I am just intrigued. Especially when he mentions passages that I have often wondered about myself, passages where Paul's tone changes, or John suddenly sounds like he's talking to himself, or when something wraps up in a strange way. These were the very places that Ehrman mentions the scribes had tried to "help" the original texts be more readable or add some detail to the story.
If you are confident in your faith, you should have no problem reading some history without the fear of being swayed away from faith. There is no danger there. I feel stronger now, having read the information, than before. Gardiner, I think you would find it fascinating. I really do.
But you're still not answering my question. I'm not saying I know what He might have told you, but it leaves me wondering if "the point of this blog" is a living reality for you now, or, like Ehrman, an "interesting historical study."
I suppose the answer to this question could fill another blog. It would not be specific to the reading of this book, but to how the Holy Spirit filtration system works.
For example, my in-laws gave me a CD of a speaker from their church, so as I was driving up to Crescent City to see my family, I was casually listening to the CD and thinking about what the man was saying. Then, toward the end, the Holy Spirit started kicking in, stimulating my thoughts and emotions in a way that feels similar to infatuation. I am drawn hungrily to certain points and driven to go to scripture and prayer in order to dig deeper. There is a tugging that takes place. And the issue was very important for me to learn at that time.
Sometimes this tugging comes unprompted, like one night when I knew I had to read 1 John, so I read the text with the anticipation of learning something important. And I did.
I read and study things all the time, but I put nothing in my bag of truth unless the Holy Spirit puts it there. In other words, I just smile curiously at a lot of things, but I am not allowed to integrate things into my faith unless I have permission to do so.
That may sound strange, but the truth is, I don't trust myself. Just like I posted in this blog, our minds re-word things. I can't trust the filter of my earthly mind for spiritual reality. I've never lived there. The Holy Spirit is my translator, my Christopher Columbus. :)
As far as this book is concerned, it was interesting, but it did nothing to change my previous belief system. I have already seen that men have written this book from their own souls, but men like Moses (in regards to the tabernacle and priestly duties) and the prophets wrote from God's.
I am going to write one more post on this subject, then move on to issues like, "What is faith, without which we cannot please God?" "What is the purpose of mankind?" and "How can we justify the soverignty of God and the freedom of man?" But the most important thing I have ever learned for sure is that, without the Holy Spirit as my guide, I am lost.
P.S. I am going to shorten the blog a bit so that some Christians are not threatened, frightened, or misunderstand me.
I could see how this post would be disconcerting to people. "What?! You're saying that the Bible is full of mistakes?" But believe it or not, this doesn't freak me out at all. If anything I find it to be a confirmation of what I have learned in the last few months.
I had a conversation last night, that at the time, I didn't even think of how it applied to this topic. Then this morning, it clicked.
What is it that 'anchors' our faith? Is it memorizing scripture? Bible study? Worship music? Fellowship with believers? Our churches? Our Pastor? Our mentors? Books about spirituality? Or is it Jesus Christ himself?
Hebrews 6:13-20
"When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.
Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
AMEN
So why WOULDN'T I read Ehrman's book?
Because I lack confidence?
Far from it.
Basically, this stuff isn't at all new, and I've done enough study at both the undergraduate and graduate level to recognize "more of the same" when I see it.
Sure, there are new people making these arguments, but the arguments and the data on which they're founded has pretty much stayed the same since the German "higher criticism" of the 19th century. Thing is, orthodox scholars have had these challenges answered for a long time now, though the secular world doesn't acknowledge this.
Case in point: ever notice that, right before Easter, the national media breaks some story about a "New Lost Gospel"? It's always a Gnostic gospel, and one that actually ISN'T new. These so-called "gospels" are a joke.
So you're right John—this is a spiritual war, and we need to be in tune to what's happening, spiritually.
Satan is out there to deceive people intellectually about the credibility of the Christian faith.
So why WOULD I read Ehrman's book or one like it?
For the same reason I brush up on what the latest "leading atheists" have to say: so I can have the wherewithal to point out their errors to anyone who may take these ravenous wolves seriously.
Eric. SO GLAD you're in this discussion. If I polled 100 Christians, how many would know ANYTHING about this topic? Not many.
I'm reading through the Gnostic gospels right now. It will go on the same shelf as Josephus (clearly not a believer), The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Book of Mormon, The City of God, and books written by authors from John Calvin to Benny Hinn.
You may be convinced that reading these things would muddy my mental waters, but I'm not reading to settle my theology. I'm reading because I'm so curious about spirituality and the human condition.
There is a history to be explored, but my relationship with Jesus Christ is a separate issue, much like the difference between my wife and a book about somebody else's marriage. Maybe I'll pick up a dating tip from the book, but I'm not reading it to change my relationship with Laurie. I'm just curious.
I'm not really a big fan of these types of books.
I understand that the way we read the bible today can't be translated exactly as it was written in the Greek. It would be impossible to do. For any one who has ever studied a foreign language, words and grammar never coincide with each other. Besides that, Greek is the most discriptive language that ever existed. It has multiple words for different stages of events/feelings/ect. (i.e. Love has three different words to describe it).
If it was translated word for word, it would be an unreadable mess. When a book is translated from English to Spanish, words are removed to make the book understandable in Spanish. Most other languages (my highest level of foreign language is a couple of years of Sign Language - but same concept) don't have words like The, it, and, but.
A mature believer isn't going to let a few words that have been changed, or the fact that some versions have this or that, come between their relationship with God. However, the danger comes in when these doubts creep into the hearts and minds of baby and adolesent believers. It is confusing and Satan uses it to divide our churches.
This isn't a book that I have read, nor will it be one that I read in the very near future. My reasoning is just that I don't want to allow an opportunity for confussion or misguidance to enter my life with Him. It may be something I read when I am back to feeling extremely secure in my walk with the Lord but until then, I think I will put this in the "Do Not Read" column. I think that the history may be good but the fact of the matter is it doesn't change my believe in the scriptures.
I think we should be wary of encouraging others to read it. We don't want to make our brothers stumble.
Post a Comment