Final Review of Misquoting Jesus - part 4 (#14)

Chapter 6 - Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text. If you thought the book was heavy before, this was the deepest of all for me. Still, it was helpful in providing church history. In it Ehrman traces Antiadoptionistic, Antidocetic and Antiseparationistic alterations of the text. Adoptionists hold that Jesus was not divine but God adopted him at the baptism (Ebionites). Docetics hold that since Jesus is God he cannot really be a man, so he was merely in the appearance of flesh (Marcion). Separationists hold that there were two - the man Jesus and the divine Christ (Gnostic). All I will say about this chapter is that Ehrman says "is seems" and "it appears" quite often, revealing the tentative nature of this entire endeavor.
Chapter 7 - The Social worlds of the Text. Erhman spotlights women, Jews and pagans and how their presence figured in possible alterations of the text. Again, there is a lot of surmising and such, but true to the form of much scholarly writing, no definite answer. Words such as "possibly" and "may have" somehow end up supporting conclusions that tout themselves as factual.
Conclusion - Changing Scripture. "In a way, being a textual critic is like doing detective work. There is a puzzle to be solved and evidence to be uncovered. The evidence is often ambiguous, capable of being inbterpreted in various ways, and a case has to be made for one solution of the problem over another." I give Ehrman credit for intellectual openness and honesty there. If you read the book, I found all of pp. 208-209 helpful. He talks of giving up thinking that it makes sense to talk of an "original text." Realistically and honestly speaking, isn't he correct? As he says, "Even if God inspired the original words, we don't have the original words." However, I also think it is possible to have 4 different gospels telling 4 varying stories about the same person and have some differences between them. That to me is not the major problem (see pp. 214-215). He concludes with a even more elusive comment - "to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text." Admittedly, reading is an act of reconstruction to some extent. But this conclusion, to me, opens the door to a more hopelessly nihilistic conclusion.