4/30/08 — Since much of what I wrote on
CreationCrisis.com
sounds like a (perhaps unwarranted) attack on the reliability of
Scripture — which can be especially offensive to fundamentalist
Christians — I wanted to include some research links related to this
very controversial issue.
Bart Ehrman
was a faithful Christian man who graduated from Moody Bible
Institute years ago (where I spent a little over a semester
myself). After discovering 'Scriptural reliability' issues he was
unaware of until his studies at Moody, Bart painstakingly researched
the ancient biblical texts and made some startling discoveries that
eventually led him to abandon the faith. I recently became aware of
Dr. Ehrman and his research through a newsletter I receive.
What he has uncovered about the original texts of Scripture is
extremely discouraging to say the least, and could potentially
destroy anyone's faith. My own faith was once again rocked as I
read about his findings. But since I don't want to abandon
the faith, I try to keep my eyes open to reality, while keeping my
heart open to God.
If you choose to read this information, please proceed with caution
and prayer!
Eternity is a very long time to be wrong — that's what I keep
reminding myself!
...Still hoping to die with my faith intact! — Mark
Bradford
Misquoting Jesus:
Does Bart Erhman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?
This article is written by a conservative Christian who believes
Dr.Ehrman is being too harsh, as it were, in his judgment of
Scriptural reliability.
One revealing quote in the article
underscores how easy it is for a person's faith to be destroyed when
they have an unrealistic understanding of what Scripture is:
"Dr. Craig Evans cites Erhman’s quote in
Fabricating Jesus.
He states that Erhman’s line of reasoning is “so typical of brittle
fundamentalism.”10
He continues by stating “rigid ideas about the verbal inspiration
and inerrancy of Scripture underlie Erhman’s problem.”11
Evans summarizes that “the
truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of
Scripture…but on the resurrection of Jesus.”12
Throughout
Fabricating Jesus,
Evans points out that
Many people, like Erhman, have
lost their faith because they have an inflexible understanding of
what inerrancy and verbal inspiration mean."
—From:
Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Erhman Prove the New
Testament is Corrupt?
READ THE ARTICLE:
Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Erhman Prove the New
Testament is Corrupt?
In a little over 200 pages, Ehrman gets
to the point of how the New Testament came to be what it is today.
No, it didn't just appear leather-bound, shiny, and new after Jesus'
resurrection; rather, it was painstakingly cobbled together decades
after Jesus' crucifixion from copies of copies of copies of (you get
the point) the original writings of the New Testament authors, which
were slowly altered over time by scribes that handed them down
(sometimes by accident or othertimes intentionally by those meaning
to "correct" things in the scriptures that didn't make sense). All
in all, Ehrman makes his case well, that even if the New Testament
scriptures started out as the inspired word of God, we humans have
certainly gotten our filthy little hands on it and have made it
quite difficult to discern what the "original" writers (whose texts
have been lost) actually wrote. Thus, we can only try to piece it
together through the challenging art of textual criticism, which is
what this book is largely about.
| BOOK
REVIEW By |
B. Breen (Sterling, VA USA)
|
This is the first book of Ehrman's I
have read. I found it interesting and well-written for the average
person who has little background in Biblical Textual Studies, (which
equates to more than 99% of the population.)
I do not have the credentials of Dr. Ehrman, but I do have the
equivalent of a degree in Biblical Literature and have worked in the
original languages. My Senior Thesis was doing a textual comparison
of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi with the
parallel passages of the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13. To do that
I had to teach myself some Coptic Egyptian and do some translating
to form a basis for comparison.
All that said to establish that I have some background to make an
evaluation of what is being said in this book.
I also have some common ground with Dr. Ehrman in life history. I
too was trained as an evangelical with a very high view of
inspiration and further had to struggle as I became aware of how
difficult it is to interact with the text in its manuscript and
historical form all while becoming painfully aware of the fact that
any view of inspiration must tacitly admit that it is a hypothetical
basis of faith because as Ehrman states clearly:
1. If the original manuscripts are inspired, we don't have them.
2. What we do have, while overall reliable and fairly easily
examined for error, still leaves some serious questions of textual
manipulation by scribes that makes several key passages difficult to
stand upon for important doctrines.
This is, in fact, not as great a secret as Ehrman seems to imply
throughout his book. There are a great number of books from all
backgrounds and degrees of belief that acknowledge these types of
issues. Granted, they tend to be more of an academic nature than
what Ehrman has attempted to do here. But they are there nonetheless
and have been for centuries.
Jefferson's Bible was an early example (though not necessarily
intended for distribution at the time) of how people wrestled with
this issue. The means of wrestling with them have improved with
additional manuscripts discovered (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag
Hammadi to name the better known ones.) Scholarship has improved to
where I believe it is safe to say that what we know in this realm
today has improved our confidence in most areas of the text.
In fact, the newer translations themselves (The NIV, the NASB etc.),
actually have margin notes and some variant readings noted very
clearly in just the areas that Ehrman focuses on within his book.
That hardly equates to a "cover-up."
In view of this, I think Ehrman somewhat oversteps his points in
favor of salesmanship to try and press home his own doubts that have
arisen in his personal journey. Most Christians have many tools,
books, websites, and Bibles themselves to be introduced to these
types of issues (IF they want to be.) This is an issue well within
the grasp of the average layman if they should be interested in
pursuing it.
There are many conservative scholars with equally distinguished
academic backgrounds that match Ehrman's and yet still maintain a
higher view of Scripture than he appears to have adopted. I accept
that his views are well informed and sincere. I do not accept his
conclusion that inspiration of the original text requires equally
divine preservation. However, in recognizing that I accept that the
onus is on those of my persuasion to provide solid scholarship to
demonstrate our case. I believe that is being provided. I would
encourage any reading this book to listen to what Ehrman has to say
and do some research on what others of a more conservative approach
and respect for Scripture have to say as well. In this regard, even
Bruce Metzger, Ehrman's mentor to whom he dedicates the book has a
somewhat more conservative view and conclusion based on the same
criteria.
The primary and most valuable point that I think Ehrman makes in
this work, is that there are many Christians in denial either
through ignorance or worse, perhaps an unwillingness to face these
issues for fear of upsetting their internal house of cards and being
forced to admit that there are unanswered questions and room for
some intellectual honesty and humility in facing difficult issues
related to the Bible.
There are many Christians, unfortunately who prefer denial to honest
appraisal. Ehrman very rightly confronts this with his material.
As an evangelical who has retained and maintained his faith in this
journey, I haven't found it necessary to resort to denial. There are
satisfactory answers to be found. It does, however, require a
willingness to adopt some humility and to honestly rethink and
modify positions when the facts call for it. That is not a bad
thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing and results in a deeper,
more understanding, more relevent and intellectually honest faith
that can move and interact within our society and culture without
apology. I don't believe God intends for his people to be mental
midgets or follow their faith mindlessly.
That having been said, I didn't find the text offensive or
threatening for that matter. I think he does a good job of raising
the points on the major issues without overly sensationalizing them
beyond what I have qualified above. His facts are reasonably sound
and accurate, even if they are somewhat selective. His conclusions
in places seem to be somewhat hastily arrived at, but I'm willing to
give him some latitude due to his goal of making this easily grasped
by the average person with no formal training.
Worth the read. Hopefully any reading this as an introduction to the
field will not stop here but go on to explore and learn more.
Metzger is good, Gordon Fee is good. FF Bruce also has some good
material, but there are many others if you want to enter the field
more deeply and see some differing persepctives.
Evangelicals, (such as myself) need to read and interact with these
types of books and enter the field as participants in the debate
rather than naysayers throwing verbal salvos from behind our walls
of faith, security and (unfortunately at times) ignorance.
Read it and be introduced into an important field of knowledge.
CreationCrisis.com
|
OriginScience.com
|
Contact
|