This is p52, the oldest fragment of the New Testament. (The 'p' stands for papyrus, the substance of the fragment.) It has been dated to around 125 A.D. The text is from the Gospel of John, which was written around 90 A.D. So the gap between the original and this copy is about 30-50 years. The text reads (in translation, with bold letters represented in p52): The Jews replied, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” (This was to fulfill what Jesus had said when he indicated the kind of death he was to die.) Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (John 18:31-33).
Below is Mark D. Roberts' comments on Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus"
In my last post in this series I began to consider a recent challenge to the inspiration of the Bible. It's recent, I should say, in that it appears in a recently published book, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. The arguments Ehrman puts forth are not new, and the evidence for his position is well-known among scholars, including many who uphold the inspiration of Scripture.
What Ehrman proposes one might call "The Text-Critical Case Against Bible Inspiration." It could be boiled down to something like this:
If the Bible is truly inspired by God, then we would expect that what was written in the original manuscripts should have been perfectly preserved, either through the preservation of those manuscripts, or through complete scribal accuracy. After all, why would God inspire the writers of the Bible but not perfectly preserve what they said? Yet when we study the history of the biblical text, we find out that scribes who copied the manuscripts made changes in the text they were copying. Some of these changes were accidental, reflecting human error, others were intentional, reflecting the particular theology of the scribe. Therefore, not only can we have no certainty about what was actually written in the original manuscripts of the Bible, but also we have no reason to believe that God inspired the original writers, because if He had, He surely would have done a better job making sure that that process of preserving His inspiration was a perfect one.
I want to make five comments in response to this argument. (i will just give 4)
1. You Can't Have Absolute Certainty in Matters of History and Faith
The Text-Critical Case Against Biblical Inspiration seems to imply that if we have anything less than full certainty about the text of the Bible, then we can't have confidence in it or its inspired origin. But this is to ask of history more than it can ever supply. What we should expect from text criticism is not 100% certainty about the biblical text, which is impossible, but rather a high level of confidence that the text reconstructed by text critics is very close to the original. This sort of confidence, I believe, is quite defensible on scholarly grounds.
2. The Text-Critical Case Against Biblical Inspiration Overstates the Problem
This argument greatly overstates the extent to which scribal changes inhibit our ability to "get at" the earliest text of the biblical books. In fact, we can have more confidence about the text of the New Testament, for example, than about any other piece of ancient writing, because we have so many copies of the New Testament from both ancient times and covering a broad array of geography. Yes, there are quite a few passages about which we cannot be sure of the original words, but these are a very small percentage of the New Testament.
3. The Tools Used in Text Critical Case Against Biblical Inspiration Actually Support the Opposite Conclusion
The argument Ehrman makes against biblical authority, ironically enough, supports the opposite conclusion. Ehrman indicates that various scribes changed the biblical text as they made copies. Fine. Let's grant that this is true, as I think it is in some cases. The text critical tools used in Ehrman's argument, however, actually show that we can identify these scribal changes and, to a high degree of probability, show what the text was like before the changes were made. In other words, Ehrman's use of text criticism to point out that scribes "misquoted Jesus" employs scholarly tools that allow us to get back to the more authentic words of Jesus. So, the very critical tools that Ehrman uses to write his book, one might argue, are the tools God has given so we can have confidence that we have access to the actual words He once inspired, or something very close to these words.
4. The Disputed Texts Are Not Terribly Significant for Christian Theology and Practice
In my last post I wrote, "Ehrman appears to believe that many of his text critical conclusions are injurious to orthodox Christianity. This is plainly false, since these conclusions are in fact held by many evangelical scholars. From everything I've learned about Misquoting Jesus, there's nothing that this book points out about the New Testament manuscripts that is truly threatening to Christian doctrine." I would add that even if we took out of the New Testament every passage that Ehrman believes, rightly or wrongly, to be questionable, this wouldn't change basic Christian theology one iota.
For example, Ehrman points to a Trinitarian scribal addition in 1 John 5:7-8. The original text of 1 John read,
There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.
At some later point a scribe added:
There are three that testify in the Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on the earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood.
All modern Bibles and translations, to my knowledge, do not print the added portion (except in footnotes). This supports Ehrman's contention that scribes sometimes changed the text of the Bible in light of their theology. Of course it also supports my contention that text criticism allows us to get back to the original text (or close to it, at any rate). Moreover, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in no way depends upon this particular passage for its biblical support.
I'd go even a step further than this and propose something I haven't actually checked in detail, but I expect is true. If you were to remove from the Bible every single passage where there is legitimate uncertainly about the original text, the impact on Christian theology and practice would be minimal at most. (The only folk I know who would be in trouble are the snake-handling Christians of Appalachia, who base their practice on Mark 16:18, which almost all scholars believe was not part of Mark's original gospel, and which almost never appears in modern Bibles without a note that explains its questionable origins.)
Although, I don't agree with everything Mark says he does make some very good points.
I have heard Bart speak and I think he is just trying to make money by writing controversial books! But that is just my opinion.
5 comments:
I have heard Bart speak and I think he is just trying to make money by writing controversial books! But that is just my opinion.
How inspiring that you end your post with an ad hominem attack. Should any members of your congregation be unconvinced by Roberts critique and wish to read Dr. Ehrman for themselves, you have conveniently dismissed him as a man of little character. I am curious, however, do you have any basis for your opinion of Dr. Ehrman other than the fact that his beliefs do not coincide with your own? I am betting that you would not say the same of apologists like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell who crank out books at a most impressive rate. At least Dr. Ehrman does his own research rather than simply rehashing the work of others.
Personally, I find Dr. Ehrman to be an impressive scholar and a man of intellectual integrity. As he pursued his studies, he concluded that the evidence was not consistent with the simplistic theology that he had embraced as a young man. Being a man of intellectual integrity, he did what such men must and he went with the evidence. I think he writes books to share his findings with others who may be asking similar questions. The vast majority of his work seems unlikely to appeal to a very wide audience.
I note that you say that you have heard Dr. Ehrman rather than read him. If I had to venture a guess, I would bet that you listened to his debate with William Lane Craig. No doubt this gave you more than sufficient basis to assess his character and motives.
Vinny thanks for the comment.
I said, "But that is just my opinion."
Which means "that is just my opinion."
I am sure Bart is a very fine man. I loved his apperance on the Daily Show, it was very interesting to see his reaction when Jon Stewart said Bart's research made the Bible seem alive. That was great.
I have read Bart, so thanks for the mischaracterization of me.
Vinny you said, "he concluded that the evidence was not consistent with the simplistic theology that he had embraced as a young man."
I hope he doesn't turn out like
George Bernard Shaw who said and I quote “The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which should have established the millennium, led instead directly to the suicide of Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.”
It was certainly not my intent to mischaracterize you. I assumed that you would have mentioned reading his work in addition to hearing him speak if had you done so since it would added to the weight that might be accorded your opinion. I am happy to hear that you are more fully informed than you previously indicated.
It may be "just your opinion," but it is an uncharitable opinion nonetheless. You cannot say that someone is "just trying to make money" without implying that they lack any nobler motive such as a desire to inform or educate. I believe that Dr. Ehrman desires to do both.
Point well taken
Fair enough.
Post a Comment