Bart D. Ehrman, a respected religious scholar and head of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, published a book titled Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. The book generated much press in the popular media in its presentation of the sayings and teachings of Jesus as found in the bible. In response to this book, Timothy Paul Jones, Professor of Biblical languages at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote Misquoting Truth. Both of these men have extensive training in the fields of biblical studies and on the surface appear to be on the same track of thought in regard to biblical analysis. However upon closer analysis one finds certain distinctions that show these men are on divergent paths that lead to very different conclusions. One of the main points of contention between these two biblical scholars lays in the reliability biblical texts.
In Ehrman's book he says, “We don't actually have the original writings of the New Testament. What we have are copies of these writings made years later...Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. What we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman tries very hard in the beginning of his to book to establish that everyone that writes biblical material has an agenda when they write. He also tries to establish that scribes are not accurate transcribers because of discrepancies between copies of texts. Furthermore Ehrman tries to establish that scribes too have agenda's while writing so there is no longer any integrity in the transmission of the original text. Through Ehrman's line of thought, he does not believe that the Bible should be trusted as a valuable source of information because of all of the corruption it has suffered through centuries of revision due to the agenda of its copiers.
However, Jones argues, “it's almost always possible through a discipline known as textual criticism to compare manuscripts and to discover where and when changes were made” (Jones, 43)
Ehrman makes the point that in most cases of New Testament text, the original manuscripts do not exist and because we do not have access to the original texts there is no way to really know what the originals said. However through the use of certain criteria for evaluating the reliability of a text reconstructions of the original can be done with fairly high accuracy. When examining biblical texts we can validate reliability through multiple sources attesting the same information. If manuscripts around the same time attest to similar stories then the likelihood that the story is true increases. Another qualifying criterion would be dating. A text is more likely to reflect the actual events that occurred if it was written close to the time of the event in question. Through this criterion we can evaluate the accuracy of copies by comparing later copies with earlier copies. If there are any discrepancies between the texts, the oldest text is probably the more accurate.
As alluded to earlier, Ehrman tries to discredit the integrity of most biblical manuscripts because of errors in the copies inadvertent or intentional. He argues that in the ancient world literate had a different meaning than what it means in the modern world. He cites an example of an official scribe handling a dispute where a village accuses their scribe of being illiterate. The official responds by saying, “Ischyrion(the local scribe) wasn't illiterate at all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official documents” (Ehrman, 39). This excerpt implies there wasn't a high standard for what passed as literate and if the scribes of the day weren't able to interpret what they were copying then the reliability of their manuscripts is not very high. However, earlier in Ehrman's book he makes a point to establish that Christianity is a descendant of Judaism. Moreover, Judaism is a religion unique in the ancient world as it is a “religion of the book.” Christianity comes from a tradition that, “stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status, therefore, of 'scripture' for the Jewish people” (Ehrman, 19). Jones agrees with Ehrman in saying that, “It's important to recognize that the writings of the prophets and the apostles were so important to early Christians that, long before they possessed buildings, they maintained a church library of sorts. During the first century A.D., the Jewish Scriptures as well as the writings of the apostles circulated as scrolls as strips of parchment or papyrus, rolled around a stick” (Jones, 34-35). Keeping in mind that most of the first century Christians were also Jewish one has to consider the rigorous process through which the scrolls of the Torah and prophets underwent to ensure their accuracy. If the Christian tradition evolved from the Judaic tradition wouldn't it make sense for the same rigors of cross checking documents that started in the Jewish tradition carry over into the Christian tradition? Nonetheless, if scribes copying New Testament texts really were as illiterate as Ehrman suggests, this fact works against his argument that scribes made intentional changes to scripture to suit their own theological agendas. If scribes couldn't even read and interpret the text they were copying, how would they be able to formulate letters into words or words into coherent sentences much less major doctrinal points?
Another major point of contention between Ehrman and Jones has to do with the reasons why Christians copied texts. Both scholars agree that a major difference between Christian copyists and secular copyists is that Christian copyists wanted to preserve the texts they were copying. The early Christians had a vested interest in ensuring scripture would survive. If the texts they read had a powerful impact on their lives it would be important to preserve the integrity of text to allow future generations to benefit just as earlier generations. Ehrman points to a passage of text from Origen of Alexandria quoting an opponent of his Celsus.
Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Ehrman, 52: Against Celsus 2.27)
From this particular passage Ehrman introduces the idea that original teachings particularly those of Christian groups that were not orthodox could be subverted by alterations made in texts. Additionally, if there were accusations against the claims of Christian teaching one could simply rewrite text to favorably support orthodoxy. However, makes the case that Ehrman is taking this particular quote out of the original context and renders a different translation of the same text.
Some believers, like person who lay violent hands on themselves in drunken rage, have corrupted the Gospel form its original wholeness, into threefold, fourfold, and manifold editions, and have reworked it so they can answer objections. (Jones, 40)
Jones further explains that from the perspective of people in the ancient world it would appear that that Christians had altered their accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus several times over as there are many “gospels.” Jones argues that Celsus may have assumed there had originally been one source that contained the life of Jesus and the gospels that followed were perversions of the original in order to answer the accusations of groups that were hostile to Christians. As already discussed one of the criterions valuable in evaluating the reliability of ancient texts is multiple attestation. Having multiple gospels does not hurt the presentation of the “gospel” as each individual gospel complements one another shedding light onto the different sides of the historical Jesus. The fact that each of the gospels contains very similar accounts and teachings only validates their authenticity.
The final point of disagreement between these two scholars rests in the significance of variation between texts. Ehrman points to the difficulty of scribes in ancient times as they were dealing with text that was written without any type of space or punctuation. This form of writing is commonly referred to as scriptura continuo in which text appears likethiswithoutanycapitalizationorpunctuationtodifferentiatebetweenwords. This obviously presents a great difficulty to scribes as one could form different words with letters in such close proximity and the original meaning may be changed. However, as discussed earlier any changes in meaning and text can be identified through the use of textual criticism comparing later texts with earlier. Something that Ehrman does not address in his book is the significance of the differences in text when the original is translated into other languages. In most cases the differences are so minute that they do not carry over into other languages. Furthermore, an important thing to consider when reading ancient texts that is also a criterion of reliability is cohesion. Ehrman says that there are over 400,000 differences found between scriptural manuscripts, but Jones points out that, “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…non of the differences affects any central element of the Christian faith” (Jones, 43-44). Both Ehrman and Jones highlight the illiteracy that plagued the ancient world; this resulted in the main form of information transmission being oral. While the exact words used during the Sermon on the Mount may not have survived into literary transmission the overall spirit of the message and content has survived. Ancient writers were concerned with the content of the message being preserved not the word order or sentence structure. Moreover, we judge the reliability of the texts based on how well it fits in with other teachings we know about. If any section of text seems to be outside the spirit of the message of Jesus then biblical scholars can determine that a particular passage was probably an addition to the original script.
This issue of cohesion is really the underlying reason why both of these scholars write. Ehrman seems to think that if God really was God, then he would have chosen a better way to present/preserve His word. God would have presented a magnificent supernatural document that would have been free of errors, free of humanity and left no question about the authenticity of the document. However, Jones argues that this type of divine presentation of scripture would in itself go against the very character of God. The God portrayed throughout scripture always interacts with people. The Old Testament is punctuated by men and women who are given the word of God to be spoken forth to the people. God’s message is always tied into humanity and never set apart, so it would break the cohesive nature of the bible as a whole if the New Testament scriptures were to be preserved and presented in a way that was free from humanity. “The pattern throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures reveals a different pattern – the pattern of a God who works through humanity” (Jones, 48)
Works Cited
Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who Changed the Bible and Why. First Edition ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005. Print.
Jones, Timothy. Misquoting Truth: A guide to the Falacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. First Edition ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment