Author Bart D. Ehrman likes provocative titles. Among his published works you will find The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, God’s Problem, and Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman wrote Misquoting Jesus to provide a layman’s introduction to the field of textual criticism, the process whereby scholars attempt to identify the original text of ancient manuscripts by comparing variations among them. As this is the first and only book I have read on the subject of Textual Criticism, I believe it does an admirable job of introducing the complexities of the challenge and the rewards of success.
Ehrman begins by discussing how New Testament manuscripts came to differ from each other and then describes the questions a textual critic will try to answer when he encounters variations among manuscripts.
Ehrman applies these principles to well-known passages, first describing the textual variations and then explaining his reasons for supporting one reading over another. He pays special attention to several passages whose interpretations might well change if the variant reading of their texts were to change. Of these, the most interesting to me personally is found on p. 185, in a section discussing changes introduced to support a restricted role for women in the church:
If this is true, then the church of which I am currently a member would be forced to reconsider their restriction on women in the pastorate!
When I began reading Misquoting Jesus, I was expecting Ehrman to give examples of how the Bible is “wrong,” and therefore untrustworthy as a source of information about who God is and what He expects from us today. Despite his respectful tone when speaking of Christianity and the New Testament text, this does, in fact, seem to be Ehrman’s own opinion:
For Ehrman, human involvement in the writing, reproduction and distribution of the New Testament disqualify it from being considered a Holy Book.
Not being a textual critic myself, I'm not going to launch any public defense or refutation of Ehrman's claims about the New Testament. I never found the example I was waiting for that would shatter my faith, so on the whole, if you're interested in Biblical translation, the history of the New Testament, or just a good controversy. I would recommend Misquoting Jesus.
~~~LeAn
Ehrman wrote Misquoting Jesus to provide a layman’s introduction to the field of textual criticism, the process whereby scholars attempt to identify the original text of ancient manuscripts by comparing variations among them. As this is the first and only book I have read on the subject of Textual Criticism, I believe it does an admirable job of introducing the complexities of the challenge and the rewards of success.
Ehrman begins by discussing how New Testament manuscripts came to differ from each other and then describes the questions a textual critic will try to answer when he encounters variations among manuscripts.
- Could the textual differences be attributed to transcription errors or are they intentional changes, introduced for theological or ideological reasons?
- What is the “family tree” of the manuscripts in question? Is one known to have been copied from an older or more reliable source?
- Does one variant seem more in keeping with the style and theme of the book as a whole?
Ehrman applies these principles to well-known passages, first describing the textual variations and then explaining his reasons for supporting one reading over another. He pays special attention to several passages whose interpretations might well change if the variant reading of their texts were to change. Of these, the most interesting to me personally is found on p. 185, in a section discussing changes introduced to support a restricted role for women in the church:
“We might consider briefly several other textual changes of a similar sort. One occurs in a passage I have already mentioned, Romans 16, in which Paul speaks of a woman, Junia, and a man who was presumably her husband, Andronicus, both of whom he calls “foremost among the apostles” (v. 7). This is a significant verse, because it is the only place in the New Testament in which a woman is referred to as an apostle. Interpreters have been so impressed by the passage that a large number of them have insisted that it cannot mean what it says, and so have translated the verse as referring not to a woman named Junia but to a man named Junias, who along with his companion Andronicus is praised as an apostle. The problem with this translation is that whereas Junia was a common name for a woman, there is no evidence in the ancient world for “Junias” as a man’s name. Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, even though in some modern English Bibles…translators continue to refer to this female apostle as if she were a man named Junias.”
If this is true, then the church of which I am currently a member would be forced to reconsider their restriction on women in the pastorate!
When I began reading Misquoting Jesus, I was expecting Ehrman to give examples of how the Bible is “wrong,” and therefore untrustworthy as a source of information about who God is and what He expects from us today. Despite his respectful tone when speaking of Christianity and the New Testament text, this does, in fact, seem to be Ehrman’s own opinion:
“The only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.” (P 203)
For Ehrman, human involvement in the writing, reproduction and distribution of the New Testament disqualify it from being considered a Holy Book.
Not being a textual critic myself, I'm not going to launch any public defense or refutation of Ehrman's claims about the New Testament. I never found the example I was waiting for that would shatter my faith, so on the whole, if you're interested in Biblical translation, the history of the New Testament, or just a good controversy. I would recommend Misquoting Jesus.
~~~LeAn
Comments
Post a Comment