Chapter 4 - Here Erhman traces "the Quest for Origins" by relating the methods and discoveries of eight theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries. In retrospect I did not interact much with his text in this chapter.
Chapter 5- Here is where I began to have more questions, concerning "Originals That Matter." On p. 129 Ehrman asks, "What if the 5th century manuscripts had been produced from a copy of the 4th century, but the 8th century manuscript had been produced from one of the 3rd century? In that case, the 8th century manuscript would preserve the older reading." That might be true, if you had the 3rd century manuscript, but here he is surmising about a manuscript we do not have. He then describes incidents in Mark, Luke and Hebrews that purportedly have textual issues in how they present Jesus.
On p. 144 he asks, "What then shall we say about our disputed verses? These are the only verses in the entire gospel of Luke that undermine this clear portrayal (22:39-46). Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate." He then concludes, "It appears (my emphasis) that the account of Jesus' bloody sweat, not found in our earliest and best manuscripts, is not original to Luke but is a scribal addition to the gospel." My response to his first assertion is, "So?" Perhaps this is the author's prerogative. Perhaps the text accurately recorded this event. Is total agreement within a text necessary? Is it possible that Jesus here in the garden acted "out of character" or "apart from expectation?" Isn't that possible as well?
When Erhman concludes this chapter on p.149 by saying, "There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings," it occurs to me that by the very nature of this subject we submit ourselves to a lot of surmising.
Said another way - he may be right, but he also may be wrong.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Review of "Misquoting Jesus" Part 2 (#12)
Chapter 2 - Here Erhman details the task of the earliest copyists of the NT. On page 46 he asserts what for me is the basic issue - "changes in the text that were made by accident and by design." On p.58 he asserts, "We may as well suspend any discussion of the 'original' text, because it is inaccessible to us." In his attempt to "reconstruct" (there's that word again, on p. 62) these events, he makes the first statement that I cannot accept. On p. 63 he says, "Textual critics have been able to determine with relative certainty a number of places in which manuscripts that survive do not represent the original text of the New Testament." My question is - How do you know? Based on the logic I have seen so far, that would be impossible to determine. How can you appeal to an original text that you have already determined doesn't exist? Otherwise, this chapter presented valuable history for me.
Chapter 3 - Here we encounter the history of the first texts of the NT, such as the Latin Vulgate and Greek editions, with the relevant personalities involved in this history. On p. 97 Ehrman describes "the scribal tendency to 'harmonize' passages, saying, "Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by the stroke of their pens." The problem is, they are not perfectly in harmony, and to me that is the beauty and wonder of the gospels. In some places the gospels are assailed for being artificially harmonized, and in other places the gospels are assailed for having differences. Is it one or the other? Or both?
That's enough for today.
Chapter 3 - Here we encounter the history of the first texts of the NT, such as the Latin Vulgate and Greek editions, with the relevant personalities involved in this history. On p. 97 Ehrman describes "the scribal tendency to 'harmonize' passages, saying, "Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by the stroke of their pens." The problem is, they are not perfectly in harmony, and to me that is the beauty and wonder of the gospels. In some places the gospels are assailed for being artificially harmonized, and in other places the gospels are assailed for having differences. Is it one or the other? Or both?
That's enough for today.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Review of "Misquoting Jesus" - Part 1 (#11)
Warning - Not for the faint of heart or Mind.
In 2005 Bart Ehrman published a book about "how the Bible was changed and why." What follows is my chapter by chapter engagement with that text.
Introduction - I found the introduction to be properly biographical and raise the right questions with just the right amount of tease for those interested in this topic. On page 7 he asks, "What good is it to say that the autographs were inspired? We don't have the originals!"
Fair enough. It did seem to me that he was reasoning backward on p. 11 when he says, "Just as human scribes had copied and changed the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture." Of course that is a fact, as such; but the implication up front is that their humanity also caused errors from the beginning.
One word that will appear a lot in the book is the word "reconstruct" (pages 15, 84, 99, 105 and 208, at least). His mission in this book is clear. Where he ends up will not thrill many Christians.
Chapter 1 - The Beginnings of Christian Scripture. This was a helpful chapter that paints the historical background of the opening centuries of how the Bible came to be.
He lists 8 kinds of books that were written in the days of the early church, and traces the formation of the canon. One main point Ehrman constantly makes is that the art of writing was primitive and most Christians were illiterate and yet Christianity was a very literary endeavor (p.42) ; also, the earliest scribes were paid professionals, he asserts, and not necessarily Christians.
That's enough for now. Chapter 2 begins the more difficult task. Should you read the book first? Sometimes that is a good thing to do. However, if not, then maybe this review will help you make that decision.
In 2005 Bart Ehrman published a book about "how the Bible was changed and why." What follows is my chapter by chapter engagement with that text.
Introduction - I found the introduction to be properly biographical and raise the right questions with just the right amount of tease for those interested in this topic. On page 7 he asks, "What good is it to say that the autographs were inspired? We don't have the originals!"
Fair enough. It did seem to me that he was reasoning backward on p. 11 when he says, "Just as human scribes had copied and changed the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture." Of course that is a fact, as such; but the implication up front is that their humanity also caused errors from the beginning.
One word that will appear a lot in the book is the word "reconstruct" (pages 15, 84, 99, 105 and 208, at least). His mission in this book is clear. Where he ends up will not thrill many Christians.
Chapter 1 - The Beginnings of Christian Scripture. This was a helpful chapter that paints the historical background of the opening centuries of how the Bible came to be.
He lists 8 kinds of books that were written in the days of the early church, and traces the formation of the canon. One main point Ehrman constantly makes is that the art of writing was primitive and most Christians were illiterate and yet Christianity was a very literary endeavor (p.42) ; also, the earliest scribes were paid professionals, he asserts, and not necessarily Christians.
That's enough for now. Chapter 2 begins the more difficult task. Should you read the book first? Sometimes that is a good thing to do. However, if not, then maybe this review will help you make that decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
