- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Synopsis: Misquoting Jesus is really a concise lesson manual on textual criticism of the New Testament. It is also filled with numerous examples that illustrate whatever point is being made.
The book begins with a description of why scriptures are important in Christianity. A lot of emphasis in placed on the idea that Christianity is a “Religion of the Book.” Erhman goes on to elaborate on how various texts were written, transported, copied, and received. Most of the early Christians were illiterate (by today’s standards) and yet they were doing the copying. This, Ehrman argues, is where most of our mistakes in the NT come from. Early copyists (non-professional ones) would make a copy and a mistake would be introduced. Another copyist would come along and copy that copy and so on and so on.
Ehrman then dives into a history of the texts, manuscripts, and textual criticism. We learn how some very brilliant people (Mill, Origen, Jerome, Erasmus, Bentley, etc.) made some important contributions to the field of textual criticism, many of which produced their own version of the NT that they felt most closely reflected the original manuscripts.
In chapter 5 we get an overview of the types of evidence that critics use in deciding what was likely in the original and what was not. External and Internal evidences make up the majority of the forms. Ehrman goes on to postulate some reasons for the various changes that were made to manuscripts. He makes clear that most of the discrepancies (over 100,000) are insignificant. He also explains that most were innocent copyist mistakes by non-professional scribes. This is what makes the Alexandrian texts so useful (they were all professional scribes and hence those manuscripts are more reliable). However, there were also a number of theologically, and socially motivated changes that made the texts fit whatever theology was currently in vogue. Ehrman ends with a sort of personal reflection on the NT and his conclusions regarding the text, scribes, and errors.
My personal interpretation:
I really liked this book (it came highly recommended). Ehrman writes very well, and is clear and concise. His story is given in the introduction, and in this particular version of the book, there is a PLUS section that has an interview with Ehrman in which he elaborates on his personal opinions and feelings.
I think a book like this is a must read for truth seekers. For those interested in certainty, or “whatever makes me feel good” it will likely destroy faith and confidence. There are some very critical problems in the NT that warp our perception of it as being the word of God. At some points in the book it feels entirely hopeless, as if there is nothing that can be concluded about its authenticity. At times I was left feeling the bible today is all just hogwash. Ehrman seems to sense this and reminds us that he doesn’t believe that to be the case. He makes it clear that many critics do come to that conclusion, but he is not one of them.
For me, the book really challenged what I thought I knew about the NT. I already did not believe it to be infallible (Mormonism doesn’t teach this), but I did have some confidence in its reliability. I am much less sure now. Particularly, I think it is clear after reading this book that the King James Version of the Bible is likely the least accurate of the english versions of the Bible. This makes me question why on earth we still use it in the LDS church. The KJV is translated almost exclusively from Erasmus’ work, which was based almost exclusively on a single 12th century manuscript that is acknowledged by experts to be one of the worst available.
There are a few take home points that I think are very critical:
1. Some of the popular stories and scriptures really don’t belong. The most important, for me, is the story of the woman taken into adultery. Great story, but probably shouldn’t be in the NT. Other points that likely should not be in the NT include:
a. Many of the scriptures that tend to substantiate a trinitarian notion of the Godhead.
b. Many of the antiadoptionist modifications of the scriptures (adoptionists were Christians who believed Jesus was fully mortal)
c. Many of the antidocetic modifications of the NT (docetists were Christians who believed that Jesus was ONLY divine and merely “appeared” to be human).
d. Many of the antiseparationist modifications (separationists were Christians who believed Jesus was two separate beings, one Jesus (human) and one Christ (divine)).
e. Textual alterations lessening the role of women in the church.
f. Alterations minimizing Jews.
g. Alterations minimizing pagans.
The first 3 were primarily theological alterations that pointed to popular Christian arguments of the day. The latter 3 involve groups that came to be viewed negatively by Christians.
2. In the LDS church we put heavy emphasis on various translations of the Bible being incorrect. But in reality, it was early copyist mistakes that account for the majority of the alterations and mistakes in the NT.
3. The Gospel of Mark, coupled with Q (a hypothetical source text common to Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) were likely the primary sources for the Synoptic Gospels. However, both Luke and Matthew present a slightly different version of Jesus than Mark. This conundrum, known as the synoptic problem, is not resolved among scholars, although the theory mentioned seems to be the most agreed upon. Mark’s Jesus is by far the most realistic. Jesus gets angry, upset, flustered at times, and is presented as more humanistic. Luke’s Jesus is stoic, reserved, and always knows how to handle the situation. Personally, I think this likely an idealized version of Jesus that promotes faith. Matthew’s Jesus is more Jewish than the others, and the Gospel of Matthew is known as part of the Jewish-Christian Gospels.
4. Early Christianity, as a person might reasonably imagine, was full of differing views of Jesus, as well as his teachings. Some of these have been mentioned (adoptionist, docetist, etc.). What came to be known as our New Testament are those scriptures which support the claims of the group that considered themselves orthodox. Since Jesus did not actually establish an organization, or church, it is difficult to conclude which group was actually right. Some apocyphal books may have been written, chronologically, close to the time of Jesus’ life. But many of them support more heretical views of Christianity and were not only not recognized as part of the canon, but are still primarily understated or rejected today (even amongst LDS). The actual canonized books of the NT were not written for at least 40 years after Jesus’ death.
It is unclear to me why the LDS church does not fully embrace the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. It is clear from a brief look at history that Joseph was really interested in getting to the truth (as opposed to simply correcting mistakes in the NT as a normal textual critic would). As a result, he received many revelations in direct conjunction with what he was reading in the Bible at the time. I suspect the reason is largely traditional and historical. We seem to keep a healthy distance from the CoC church, and it was through Emma’s ownership of the manuscripts that led to the publication of the JST by the CoC. However, the copyright expired long ago, and there is no technical reason we could not adopt it as our own.
I would love to see Ehrman’s analysis of the JST Bible. I suspect he would dismiss it as not that great a translation. But Ehrman’s goal, as a textual critic, is to discover what was in the original manuscripts. As my #4 indicates above, there is likely a wide gap between what was in the original manuscripts and what was actually taught by Jesus. As a result, I think LDS are fully justified in not worrying a great deal about what was actually in the original New Testament manuscripts (as protestants surely must). It would behoove us then, however, to focus more on Joseph’s revelations rather than ensuring we are in harmony with the KJV text as we are sometimes wont to do.
If one does not recognize Joseph’s (or another’s) ability to receive proper revelation as it pertains to absolute Truth, I see no reason to draw the conclusions made by numerous protestant groups that seek to use the Bible as its sole infallible authority. The wide gap that I think must reasonably exist in early Christianity surely dispels notions that the Bible authoritatively represents what Jesus taught. Couple that with the multitude of changes, errors, and poor translations and I have a hard time buying into arguments that try to use the Bible as a source of absolute Truth, or the inerrant word of God. I also extend that idea to conclude that disputes over scriptural interpretations are likely less important than they are made out to be.
Great book – and great review. I also recommend it highly – especially for those who are beginning to realize that even scripture can be the perspective of the writers and translators, not Absolute Truth from God’s mouth to paper or plates. (but rarely paper plates) Thanks!
@all I made a few small edits to the review for accuracy. I had stated that nothing was written for 40 years after Christ’s death. That may not be true, as some apocryphal books may have been written before the canonized books were. However, to the best of our knowledge, the actual canonized books were not written until at least 40 years after Jesus’ death (depending on whose scholarship you buy into).
Thanks for the review, Eu! I love Ehrman’s work…quite easy to read. Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.
I think that’s a good move, and allows the members many different approaches and perceptions of the early claims.
Rix wrote:Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.
Hmmm, that’s an interesting point Rix, I had not thought of that. If I take the approach that Joseph’s claims were literally true, I have a really hard time figuring out why we don’t use the JST.However, it seems to me that “evidence” for Joseph’s claims, if nothing else, has ramped up! I remember E Maxwell’s talk not that long ago that mentioned the church would no longer allow critics to “slam dunk” the church. And hence modern apologetics in the church was born. And they seem to still be going strong. But perhaps they don’t want to add one more thing on the apologist table. I dunno.
Incidentally, Bruce McConkie once said that the JST Bible was the best version of the bible on earth. This is why I’m led to the conclusion that it is more tradition than anything. We have a pretty hard time, in our church, breaking with tradition.
Euhemerus wrote:Rix wrote:Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.
Hmmm, that’s an interesting point Rix, I had not thought of that. If I take the approach that Joseph’s claims were literally true, I have a really hard time figuring out why we don’t use the JST.However, it seems to me that “evidence” for Joseph’s claims, if nothing else, has ramped up! I remember E Maxwell’s talk not that long ago that mentioned the church would no longer allow critics to “slam dunk” the church. And hence modern apologetics in the church was born. And they seem to still be going strong. But perhaps they don’t want to add one more thing on the apologist table. I dunno.
Incidentally, Bruce McConkie once said that the JST Bible was the best version of the bible on earth. This is why I’m led to the conclusion that it is more tradition than anything. We have a pretty hard time, in our church, breaking with tradition.
Yes, we are traditionalists! And I’m sure many leaders still hold to the literalist view of Joseph’s claims…and the FARMS’ boys can satisfy many that there is still a possibility that it is all historical. But I think the pendulum is swinging the way of the symbolist, and room is being made for them/us. While it is happening, I think the prudent approach is to be a bit silent on the controversial areas…sort of like the church was around the blacks/priesthood transition.
BUT, I may be crazy too!
😆 
I also highly recommend this book. Definitely on the list of must-reads for people who want to get a better grasp on the New Testament, and how it came into being. Btw, there is another thread about this book here at: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1213 Quote:The KJV is translated almost exclusively from Erasmus’ work, which was based almost exclusively on a single 12th century manuscript that is acknowledged by experts to be one of the worst available.
That’s a bit of a biased statement, but anyway.
What I find interesting is just how much contemporary Bible translations exclude from their corpus –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_omitted_Bible_verses Besides which, many of the contemporary Bible translations use source material which agrees with RC doctrine (since the Catholic church backs some of them) or else tone down the anti-homosexual material (e.g. NIV) because of the personal preferences of some of those involved, such as Virginia Mellenkott and Marten H. Woudstra. Say what you like about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality/phobia, but changing the translation to suit yourself is not right. A translation should keep the sense of the original.
Of course, the KJV has biases of its own, for example, it is soft on drinking.
Quote:I would love to see Ehrman’s analysis of the JST Bible. I suspect he would dismiss it as not that great a translation.
The JST isn’t a translation of the existing manuscripts, it’s either supposedly an explanation of what’s really meant, or a revelation of what the original said, IMHO.
Quote:g. Alterations minimizing pagans.
Not sure why you include this, or the woman caught in adultery. The story of the woman caught in adultery fits in with many of the other teachings given IMHO.
Old-Timer wrote:Btw, there is another thread about this book here at:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1213
Ah, oops, my bad! I was lazy and didn’t look to see if there was one already.SamBee wrote:Quote:The KJV is translated almost exclusively from Erasmus’ work, which was based almost exclusively on a single 12th century manuscript that is acknowledged by experts to be one of the worst available.
That’s a bit of a biased statement, but anyway.
I admit it is definitely a generalization, but it’s pretty accurate. Not sure what your sources are but Ehrman mentions this several times. The KJV was translated by 47 scholars using the textus receptus (seehereSamBee wrote:Besides which, many of the contemporary Bible translations use source material which agrees with RC doctrine (since the Catholic church backs some of them) or else tone down the anti-homosexual material (e.g. NIV) because of the personal preferences of some of those involved, such as Virginia Mellenkott and Marten H. Woudstra. Say what you like about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality/phobia, but changing the translation to suit yourself is not right. A translation should keep the sense of the original.
That’s because they all use the same source manuscript, the Textus Receptus which is one of the worst available.SamBee wrote:Quote:I would love to see Ehrman’s analysis of the JST Bible. I suspect he would dismiss it as not that great a translation.
The JST isn’t a translation of the existing manuscripts, it’s either supposedly an explanation of what’s really meant, or a revelation of what the original said, IMHO.
That’s correct. I thought I made that clear. That’s why I think Ehrman would find it unimpressive. Joseph was not being a textual critic but a revelator.SamBee wrote:Quote:g. Alterations minimizing pagans.
Not sure why you include this, or the woman caught in adultery. The story of the woman caught in adultery fits in with many of the other teachings given IMHO.
Not sure what you mean. The point of textual criticism is to discover what was in the original. According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That’s the whole point. The alterations minimizing pagans were one of the sets of intentional modifications that scribes and translators inserted to elevate their own ideas and theologies. Hence it is an embellishment of the original and does not belong.I don’t think Misquoting Jesus is a must read for everybody. At least do the following after you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the mission of Jesus Christ: If I was going to approach the New Testament from a healthy LDS approach then read the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). Take at least two LDS Institute Classes; one on the gospels, and the second on Acts to the Apostles. I would get grounded into what is actually in the New Testament; why it was written, what was written. John and Paul are a few of the writers who let us know why they are writing. I would read James E. Talmage’s Jesus the Christ along with the Gospels; that provides a pretty good commentary from someone who wrote a book as an Apostle in the Upper Rooms of the Salt Lake Temple. Then by this time after serious study I would then read Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. I agree with a lot of what Ehrman says because it is logical and makes sense, however, I do not believe everything he says because (1) everything is arguable (he’s an academic) (2) Real-important truth that is arrived at differently than scholars and science arrive at truth is more important. (3) Be careful not to scrutinize to the point to where you abandon the first four principles of the Gospel and a testimony of the savior. Too many academics and philosophers out in the world will commit the straw-man argument where if they find a flaw here, and a flaw there, they will say the whole thing is hogwash. Never, never do that-you discredit yourself by doing so, and will lose more than you will gain. I have advanced degrees and have gotten into a lot of head trips and I realize that (1) To be learned is good if you hearken to the counsels of God (2 Nephi 9:28-29). If you are not spiritually healthy you shouldn’t be on the path to prove or disprove something from purely a carnal mindset (logic alone). Remember (2) to be spiritually minded is life eternal; to be carnally minded is death. Yes, it is true that we do not believe in the infallibility of scripture. But, we do believe in truth as dictated by the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Holy Ghost you shall know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:5. I know from experience that if I am angry, have bad thoughts or have sinned the Spirit leaves me and then I am left alone. In a situation like this one is very vulnerable to any wind of doctrine of cunning logical explanation. The apostle Paul does a great job talking about this subject. Nevertheless, Ehrman makes many great points and I liked his book. A great source that surveys the historical background for any textual criticism, but really strikes at the issue of Apostasy in ancient Christianity is an LDS source: Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary Perspectives on the Christian Apostasyby Noel B. Reynolds. Chapter 8 within this work is entitled “The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity” written by John Gee. This chapter and work overall really strikes at the heart of the matter of Christian Apostasy which pretty much occurred by the second century AD. Euhemerus wrote, Quote:According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That’s the whole point.
Because of the 5500 different variant texts of the New Testament that are in existence, I don’t fully agree with this point. Brian Hauglid a professor of religion of BYU stated in a paper on textual criticism the following: (Religious Studies Center volume 8 no. 2 “Searching For God’s Word in New Testament Textual Criticism”)
“One other important example of a large group of verses not found in most manuscripts is the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11. Interestingly, the account is inserted in five other locations in various manuscripts, such as after John 7:44, 21:25, and even after Luke 21:38. Textual critics argue that the vocabulary and style of these verses differ considerably from the rest of the Gospel of John and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12. Yet scholars generally agree that the antiquity of the story and its place in Christianity result in a beloved account that merits it a double-bracketed place in the Greek New Testament.[29] Again, that John did not write these verses does not mean that the story of the adulterous woman is not true. The question of addition and omission is an important aspect of the textual critics’ work of determining whether a text is original.”
I just wanted to clarify that perhaps this story was taken out of another Biblical passage in an attempt to harmonize the four gospels by a scribe and that is why it was inserted in John. It is a lot like the last 12 verses of the book of Mark, they are true in harmony with other gospels on the resurrection, but perhaps not written by Mark but inserted by a scribe.
Old-Timer wrote:Great book – and great review. I also recommend it highly – especially for those who are beginning to realize that even scripture can be the perspective of the writers and translators, not Absolute Truth from God’s mouth to paper or plates. (but rarely paper plates)
Thanks!
I want to echo this…just as conference talks often represent the opinions of the speakers rather than absolute truth, I think the same can be said of interpretations/writings of people who lived during the time of Jesus. At a minimum, what Euheremus has offered here in his review solidifies my positon that the Bible isn’t some magic book to be worshipped as the be-all, end-all. I hear people parse the words of the Bible all the time in sermons on TV, and it makes me think they are ascribing a level of precision in the Bible’s language that can’t possibly exist.
And I agree with Ray’s quote above — and say that I think even the Bible is probably laden with interpretation. I also wonder how much of it is lore, and how much is distorted by people’s memories or tendency to embellish.
People embellish their testimonies all the time; or write to create a certain impression they think is valuable — is it possible the early writers of the books known as the Bible did the same thing? It wouldn’t surprise me.
I think it would be a funny movie to portray a people who experience a truly divine intervention from a Heavenly Being of some kind — perhaps God. Someone is charged with writing it all down by the Heavenly Being, and makes a grammatical error. This leads to a comic litany of events that leads to the culture adopting something incredibly outlandish and stupid, believing wholeheartedly that they are acting in ways prescribed by God — when actually, all they are doing is acting on a spelling error. Sacrificing their lives and their possessions, all for some error in transcription of language.
And then, when the spelling error is brought to light through later revelation from the heavenly being, the people REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT because they have hallowed the book to the point of almost making it an idol. Others leave the religion altogether because they realize “The Book” is no longer infallable — effectively leaving the religion upon actually learning the absolute truth it was meant to portray.
I image you could have a a lot of fun with the plot of that movie. I’m half-inspired to go and write it ……it would be an analogy that would probably incite the rest of the Christian world against me, however.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.