In his bestseller "Misquoting Jesus", Chapel Hill religion chair and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman argues that the manuscripts of the New Testament are so riddled with errors that any hope of knowing what the original words of Scripture were is a lost cause. This leads Ehrman to depart from the orthodox Christian faith of his mentor at Princeton, the late Bruce Metzger, in favor of agnosticism.
Ehrman's argument has persuaded many of the unreliability of the New Testament and he has become somewhat of a media darling, particularly during the Christian holiday seasons of Christmas and Easter, when religious topics are frequently discussed throughout mainstream media outlets...from CNN to National Geographic to the Colbert Report--and Ehrman is usually brought in to give his thoughts.
What almost never gets discussed, however, is the actual practice of text-criticism and how it relates to the transmission and translation of the Biblical texts. In this video segment from Methodist Examiner James-Michael Smith's adult study course "Bible for the Rest of Us," we look at this core discipline of Biblical Studies and show why Ehrman's popularity as an author relies upon the widespread ignorance within the culture--both inside and outside the church's walls--of the nature of actual text-criticism.
Comments
Hey James,
The problem which we face (as you well know), is that the National Education Association has done its job and achieved its goal: National Ignorance of the General Population.
Social Progressives have understood for many decades that an educated public is one which cannot easily be swayed. When a populace is educated, arguments made without facts do not long survive the light of day. However, when emotions became the premier standard by which people were to judge something in their lives, rational consideration was buried.
Thus, it is the case that the majority of Americans under 40 are without the tools to actually discern issues logically. You cannot convince someone of something if they are not equipped, nor inclined by having been inculcated by the SP's dogmas, with the necessary tools.
The SP's have won, plain and simple. We can only hope to salvage what few thinking people still exist.
Cheers from a Bible Thumper
I wouldn't worry to much about "Social Progressives". They are all dying out (you know: Hippies). The younger generation of shamans, gnostic and deists tend to be libertarian fiscally as well as socially. Say goodbye to your Social Security, and hello to the entire bill of rights restored.
The arguments in the video are an oversimplification. There are actually only a few truly ancient manuscripts (instead of thousands) of any part of the New Testament. Most copies are medieval (400s CE and later), and we should also exclude manuscripts written in languages other than Greek, i.e. Latin, Coptic, Slavonic.
The presumption here too, is that most of the New Testament documents came from a single source document, which is not necessarily the case.
To a true seeker, these words do not matter.
This is more about religion than the spiritual path that Jesus pointed to. Jesus knew what he was talking about. Christianity never has. It attempts to perpetuate the words of a dead master. It cannot be done. Instead, it becomes a cult of the dead.
The "word of God" can only be spoken by a living master. Once that master leaves the earthly realm, the power of his words "the light" goes with him.
Christianity has done great disservice to who and what Jesus was. Jesus was a man. Who had reached his spiritual maturity. A fate that awaits us all in time.
He was never to be turned into a deity to be worshipped. Only followed. So as to become as he was.
Christianity has it wrong. The bible has it wrong. Judaism has it wrong. Islam has it wrong.
All you need is compassion for your fellow man. The road to the Kingdom is paved with nothing else.
x
I don’t think that text criticism is the issue. The real issue is with the Bible itself and the claims it makes. We don’t know what Jesus said since the earliest gospel was written forty years after his death. Number two, the whole crux of Christianity is not supported by nature. No woman has ever given birth without first having “known a man,” and no human being has died and come back to life. No other God has incarnated, and the miracles that were purported as happening in the Bible do not happen now, which means that they probably never did or they would still be happening. We have to deal with this… the Bible was written before scientific knowledge was available, before “fact-checking” was important, and in a time when people actually believed that some of the outrageous claims made by the Bible could be true. Whether the original texts still survive or not isn’t the issue. The real is why we feel we need to defend the book and make it true.
Steven, I agree that this is a simplification--any first year student of text-criticism would LOVE it if it were this easy!--but the underlying concept is the same. One does not need the originals in order to accurately reconstruct the message.
X,
If the words of the New Testament cannot be trusted as accurately reflecting what Jesus said, did or taught then were does this knowledge you have of what Jesus was REALLY all about come from??
Look, it's quite simple. If you have an all powerful god and/or son who created the entire UNIVERSE!, you would think by now that god could have updated the only book(s) that purports to be his Word! In fact, he could have simply written his book instead of having others write it for him, if he indeed created the entire UNIVERSE!
Let's grow up, people, and stop relying on ancient texts to prove or justify believe in a theistic, totally invisible god; Adam, Eve, and the grand serpent destroyer; a virgin Mary and some preacher/prophet who is long overdue for returning from the dead. I mean, dang, what's with the mystery and the need for interpretations, anyway? It's all nonsense now. It's 2010, folks! Grow up.
Bakari - Your post is out of place. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Besides, you sure do a lot of presupposing about what God should or shouldn't do yet u don't believe in this God - 'wouldn't it have been better if God did 'x'?'. So, Bakari, how do u know what is better in the first place? If God exists, how do u know that Him changing text today is any better than how it was left? What standard r u looking to?
JM - It would have been interesting to see a little more on how Erhman, 'after having dealt with defining text criticism accurately', erred in his hermaneutic.
AK, I talk a little more about it in the actual course, but for a comprehensive guide to Ehrman's fallacies see the following resources:
tinyurl.com/yz7pmm7
tinyurl.com/yh8zgoz
Good explanation of textual criticism in the video.
AK, here's the problem. God-believers make large claims about the existence of a god. Most Christians want to also claim that Jesus is the god and a spiritual passage to another spiritual place called Heaven. All these claims are ultimately based on a reading of the Bible. Yet, this book, no matter how you interpret it, is so full of contradictions and is wholly inadequate—for many rational thinking people anyway—that it simply doesn't warrant respect as legitimate evidence for the claims being made. What evidence do you have that any of the claims or interpretations in the Bible are fact, are true? You *believe* and *hope* they are true, but which claims do you *know* provide evidence other than mere words that maintain, for example, that Jesus walked on water, or that he's some son of a god, or is god. All you have is believe in words. That's it.
I would take Bakari’s point a little further here. We all speak of God and make claims about God and talk to God as if God were there. But the reality is, if God is there, it has refused to make itself known. Yes, we have a Bible, and a Quran, a Torah, a Bhagavad Gita and other ‘scriptures,’ but I’m talking about something tangible. God, if there is such a thing, refuses to be recognized in a way that can be measured scientifically, or seen through nature. At some point in every court of law, the defendant must take the stand or concede the case. It’s time, if God exists, for it to speak up, or it’s time for us to move on.
Why is that relevant here? Because of the way we treat the Bible. We treat the Bible as if it’s some sort of sacred text that we have to prove right though all of our study, criticism, interpretation, exegesis and theology. Text-criticism is just another way of trying to keep ourselves from asking the question we’re terrified to ask… what if t's not true?
Ben,
I don't know very many serious Christians who have not wrestled with that very question. I certainly have. Anyone who says they haven't is probably not being honest. However, it's that very evidence that you can't seem to see that leads countless people back to the carpenter of Nazareth. If there were no such thing as someone converting from non-belief to Christianity based on intellectual arguments and evidence I might be able to accept your point. But people like C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, and even Antony Flew, as well as countless others are (or were) living contradictions to your argument.
But ultimately, even for these men, it still came down to “faith.” They tried, but they were not able to take this out the realm of belief. Even Mr. Lewis’ liar—lunatic—or lord argument could not stand up to criticism because it wasn’t Jesus who claimed to be lord. He had already been deified by Paul before Mark, the earliest gospel was written. The only document that may be untainted by editing and redacting is the gospel of Thomas.
I do want to be clear: The Jesus presented in the gospels is an amazing individual, but you can definitely see the bias’ being written into the gospels. Based on your argument though, I could find the same connection through Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Muslim, etc. Whether I choose Jesus, Buddha, Krishna or quantum physics, I’m looking at the world around me, picking a philosophy, calling it God, then defining it.
That being said, if it works, do it, but do so knowingly so that as new awareness becomes available, we’re able to adapt…
I agree with Ben, there have been many, many people who have Jesus-like qualities. But this one historical figure is "believed" to be unique because "he died for our sins." Think about how silly that sounds. I mean, really, none of us ask to come here and yet we're damned for our "sins." According to the Bible, Adam and Even did something wrong, so the entire human race must suffer in sin because something these two Biblical characters did. How do you interpret that story as rational? It really does not make sense. Yet, I think people believe it because either they fear the so-called after-life, or because they can’t imagine that this life is all there is. No Heaven, no Hell. Basically, religious belief is about hope for better life, but that provides no evidence for religious claims about the existence of god, jesus, allah, or any supernatural being.
Ben - the problem with the tangibility argument that u have (where God must be proved scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt) doesn't work because science alone does not provide the framework for knowledge of everything in life. If we can things in life outside of scientific proof, then it is probable that we can have knowledge of God outside of scientific proof. The question of knowledge and how we know what we know goes a lot deeper than scientific proof. If science was the only way we derived knowledge of reality, then it would be fair to say God must be proven scientifically, but that is not the case.
Ben - the problem with the tangibility argument that u have (where God must be proved scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt) doesn't work because science alone does not provide the framework for knowledge of everything in life. If we can things in life outside of scientific proof, then it is probable that we can have knowledge of God outside of scientific proof. The question of knowledge and how we know what we know goes a lot deeper than scientific proof. If science was the only way we derived knowledge of reality, then it would be fair to say God must be proven scientifically, but that is not the case.
I agree with Ben, there have been many, many people who have Jesus-like qualities. But this one historical figure is "believed" to be unique because "he died for our sins." Think about how silly that sounds. I mean, really, none of us ask to come here and yet we're damned for our "sins." According to the Bible, Adam and Even did something wrong, so the entire human race must suffer in sin because something these two Biblical characters did. How do you interpret that story as rational? It really does not make sense. Yet, I think people believe it because either they fear the so-called after-life, or because they can’t imagine that this life is all there is. No Heaven, no Hell. Basically, religious belief is about hope for better life, but that provides no evidence for religious claims about the existence of god, jesus, allah, or any supernatural being.
AK>“If science was the only way we derived knowledge of reality, then it would be fair to say God must be proven scientifically, but that is not the case.”
So why do you think this deity needs to be such a mystery to us? Nearly all we know is through material evidence, so if this deity is so real, why is it immaterial? Could be that a god that you don't know, can't touch, can't have a real conversation with is the best god to believe in, because then people can imagine the deity anyway they want? I mean, why stop at the theistic god. All imaginary gods henceforth or acceptable. Just get enough people to believe and you got yourself a god. And throw in the red devil with horns. He doesn't have to be proven either. Just believe and so it shall be. Wow..seriously crazy.
And really, god should not have to be proven. He really just needs to actually exist! Just like you and I and everyone else exist. We don't have to believe that. We know it and live it. We are fact, god is not. God is a character in a series of largely mythical Judaic stories.
Ben,
I'm afraid you seem to have bought into the Dan Brown school of Biblical scholarship. ;) The Gospel of Thomas is a mid-second century text that is thoroughly Hellenistic and gnostic in nature. Gnosticism such as found in GoT didn't develop until the 2nd century and while a couple of the GoT sayings may go back to the historical Jesus, they are the ones that match the sayings found in the canonical Gospels.
Don't buy the hype. The GoT provides almost nothing of any relevance to the 1st century historical Jesus. This may not sit well with Elaine Pagels, Karen King, James Robinson, or the Jesus seminar (as they have built their fame off claims of its authenticity), but revisionist history isn't the goal of Biblical scholarship.
How is Antony Flew, a philosopher, relevant? He certainly doesn't believe the bible, or that Jesus was god. Or that God needed to Sacrifice himself to himself to pay for the punishment he set.
Ben - the problem with the tangibility argument that u have (where God must be proved scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt) doesn't work because science alone does not provide the framework for knowledge of everything in life. If we can things in life outside of scientific proof, then it is probable that we can have knowledge of God outside of scientific proof. The question of knowledge and how we know what we know goes a lot deeper than scientific proof. If science was the only way we derived knowledge of reality, then it would be fair to say God must be proven scientifically, but that is not the case.
BathTub,
Flew is relevant because the claim being made here is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. While Flew is no Christian Theist, he is a living testimony to the availability of knowledge through general revelation that there is, in fact, a creator. I recommend reading his book "There IS a God" for the details of how he came to this conclusion entirely apart from religious faith.
Ben,
To follow up, here are reasons why the GoT is a mid-2nd century document (likely written after 170 AD):
* GoT quotes and alludes to various NT works including all 4 Gospels.
* GoT's Jesus sayings are linked by Syrian (not Greek) catchwords and rely upon Tatian's Syrian "Diatessaron" compiled around AD 170.
There's a reason Gospel of Thomas isn't in the Canon...it's a later 2nd century Gnostic creation that preserves very little actual Jesus material. And the material it does preserve is only that which was already in the 4 canonical gospels and Paul's letters.
Sorry for the reposts you all. I have been hitting refresh on my iPhone and it has been reposting. My bad!
There’s a reason a lot of documents aren’t in the Bible. The Bible wasn’t officially canonized until the first council of Nicaea. As to the book of Thomas, my sources posit the book around ce60, right about the time the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The reason it’s probably more reliable is that it wasn’t edited to fit the Christian theology.
As to theunwarranted fear of Gnosticism, it’s a philosophy, the same as Christianity. In one, Jesus is God, in the other, he enlightened. The Dan Brown reference doesn’t bother me either since he was probably right, Jesus was married to Marry Magdalene.
Finally, regarding the assertion that not everything can be proven scientifically, I say: Prove it. There is nothing on this planet in this solar system in this Universe that cannot be answered scientifically. Nothing. And I would dare you to find one thing. Anyone that uses faith is doing so because that’s all they have. If God exists, it can be proved. Until then, we made it up.
Ben,
I'd encourage you to read less Dan Brown and more actual history. Your facts are simply wrong. Nicea had nothing to do with any books of the Canon (even a simple wikipedia search can remedy THAT error) and the Mary Magdalene theory is beyond laughable by real historians.
As for the claims about science being able to prove everything...science cannot prove that very statement, which by nature is philosophical rather than scientific. Science can't prove logic or reason...rather, it relies upon them in order to function.
Sigh, and here’s the problem. You’re asking me to read a history book, and it’s obvious you’ve never cracked open a Bible history book. Every CREDIBLE biblical scholar believes that Jesus was married. I refer you to Susan Hasking as just one example.
Look, I get that you need this to be true, and I’m okay with that. I’m not trying to take away your God or your reason to believe. What I am saying is that God, whatever it is doesn’t exist in the form of Jesus Christ or some giant creator in the sky. Prima facie evidence: The Earth is billions of years old, we’re an evolved species, therefore the whole idea of sin and redemption is not feasible. If there were a God, I would love it. It’s sometimes difficult staring at the face of this giant Universe and trying to figure out my place in it. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to take up a fairy tale. It means I work to give my life meaning… me. I give my life meaning. I am my redeemer. I am my savior.
Ultimately, the fact that you have to make a statement that science can’t prove everything is proof that you haven’t spent much time with scientific research. The proof is up to you, you’re making the claim OUTSIDE of science. The claim that is not supported by science. Everything I’m saying can, and is backed up… The Discovery Channel, Nova, Bill Nye, NASA, Charles Darwin, Kenneth R. Miller… the In a court of law, you’re making an accusation that you can’t back up. Albert Einstein said that “Mathematics is the language of God…” SCIENCE! Science is the language of the Universe, and for now, the Universe is God.
"You’re asking me to read a history book, and it’s obvious you’ve never cracked open a Bible history book. Every CREDIBLE biblical scholar believes that Jesus was married."
Haha...Ben, you do realize my master's degree is in Biblical historical studies, don't you? This is like trying to tell a chemist that every CREDIBLE chemist believes in spontaneous generation.
Enough trolling.
Hi James-Michael! My sister's Master's (Div) is also in church history. I'm currently trying to work through Bultmann's "Kerygma and Myth" on her recommendation.
Can you recommend any work better than "Misquoting Truth"? If I remember correctly, the author's arguments *starts* from the position that [Christians] can have faith that the texts are harmonious, therefore perceived tension is simply error on our part. With that understanding, I presume, the texts' meanings merely need massaging until our understanding of apparent differing messages become complementary.
If true, somewhere, someone doing their dissertation on Hamlet, is shuddering at the thought.
Disclosure: I attempted to read MJ about a year ago, but put it down reading a chapter or three for the reason mentioned above. Also, if it not already clear, my understanding of text-crit is quite amateurish.
Hi Diochs,
Bultmann's influence far exceeds his contributions, IMO. But it's good to be familiar with him as a figure in the history of Biblical studies.
For another take on Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" check out Nicolas Perrin's "Lost in Transmission?" For a more general and helpful introduction to text-criticism check out Paul Wegner's "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible" or the more scholarly work by Aland & Aland "The Text of the New Testament" I also recommend the work of Ehrman's mentor, Bruce Metzger.
After you finish Bultmann, you may want to familiarize yourself with N.T. Wright (especially his "Jesus and the Victory of God" which challenges many of the antiquated Bultmannian presuppositions in Jesus studies) and Ben Witherington (who frequently deals with Ehrman's claims in both popular and scholarly forums).
Thanks for the recommendations.
Yeah, my sister said that Bultmann was for perspective - I think she's trying to slowly catch me up to the 21st century.
I started with "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook" (Hayes/Holiday) about two years ago, and it has been handy. I've been trying to get my hands on "The Text of the New Testament" (Metzger/Erhman, 4th Ed) for some time. I'll see if I can rustle up the specific Paul Wegner's work you mention - right now only "The journey from texts to translations" is available to me.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!