I've just finished both these books to give me a better grasp of the NT history for my conversations with my JW friend, Its fairly mind blowing and pretty much rocks the NT as a source of stability and inerrancy. Fascinating stuff! If it hadn't been for the Visigoths and some opportune political intrigue and deaths most of Christianity might have been based on a non trinitarian doctrine!
Anyone read 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'When Jesus became God?'?
by Qcmbr 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
slimboyfat
I have read them both and I agree they are excellent. It's funny how ex-Witnesses seem to be drawn to the same sort of reading material, isn't it?
Slim
-
Dansk
Sorry, I haven't read the books you cite, but I've recently ordered this book: Who wrote the Gospels? by Randal Helms.
Here's a review on Amazon:
"This book is especially appropriate now when a number of Evangelists and Christians believe the "last days" are approaching and they quote Daniel and Mark in support of their beliefs. Helms clearly shows how Mark based many of his apocalyptic beliefs and statements on the Book of Daniel. In his analysis he also points out several historical inaccuracies of the Old Testment and contradictions between the Gospels in the New Testament. When Jesus failed to return during the life time of his followers (as Mark said he would), Matthew and Luke had to rewrite the stories to make them fit their own troubled times. Helms also presents a strong and fascinating case that the author of Luke was a woman. "Who Wrote The Gospels" is readable, clear, and enlightening."
Ian -
Qcmbr
I didn't feel a need to understand the historicity of the NT until I was talking (debating) with a JW. I found that he had the edge when he quoted spurious scriptures and historical facts but I see now his understanding is only what he's read in the WT publications because the truth is so much more damning. Instead of finding a simple spurious verse here or there I find the whole thing is shot to pieces and all christian , bible believeing churches owe more to historical events than to pure doctrine for the basis of their dogmas.
-
slimboyfat
For something a bit deeper on textual criticism I would highly recommend another book co-authored by Ehrman and Metzger:
Incidentally, I see that a Christian has written a response to Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". I wonder if anyone has read it:
Slim
-
Qcmbr
I'm currently reading two more books by Bart Erhman - 'Lost Christianities' and 'Lost Scriptures.' Its amazing how being at church and 'studying' the scriptures gives you a false sense of understanding because you aren't really studying history - just interpreted meaning. I wish we'd do more of this sort of stuff!
-
Qcmbr
I may have to order the first book Slim. Looks good but my mind is already reeling with too much information.
-
Amazing
qcmbr,
If it hadn't been for the Visigoths and some opportune political intrigue and deaths most of Christianity might have been based on a non trinitarian doctrine!
The Trinity was well in play from the early second century forward. The early Church Fathers fought against non-Trinitarian concepts that were continuously being promoted as alternatives to traditional teaching. Prior to this, mostly in the first century, the nature of Jesus was not challenged, and so there would not be a need to teach the Trinitarian concepts that the Church did in the second century. The Trinity doctrine was also well defined by the year 180 or 190 AD, long before the Council at Nicaea in 325.
The same Church that is accused of making the Trinity stick, is the same Church that decided what books are canonical and inspired and should be in the New Testament record. The NT Bible was not even compiled until the late 4th century. The NT Bible was not available to the general public until the 17th century. So, during all that time, the Church and Christians lived by one tradition. It seems to me that if we believe in Christ and the Christian faith, that we would also believe that God would have seen to it that basic Christian doctrine was firmly implanted and universally accepted. The Trinity is just one of those doctrines.
I personally do not judge or hold that belief in the Trinity is required for salvation, for the Bible teaches that only faith in Jesus and his shed blood for our sins brings salvation. However, I do believe that the Trinity, as defined by the Church, is the best, most accurate definition we have to explain the nature of God as put forth in the Bible.
Jim Whitney
-
Dansk
I looked at reviews on both the American and British sites on Amazon for Misquoting Jesus, and the difference is staggering!
I enjoyed this on the British site:
"Prof Ehrman's book can be described as an introduction to New Testament textual criticism for the beginners, in which he explains the subject in the context of his own background, relating his journey from being an Evangelical Christian to becoming a world renowned New Testament scholar. Besides D. C. Parker's "Living Text of the Gospels," Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" seems to be the only book on textual criticism designed specifically for the non-expert readers.
In short, Ehrman explains the copying practises of the earliest period and how the texts of the New Testament writings were corrupted as they were copied and recopied. He begins by introducing the diverse writings produced by the early Christians, such as gospels, Acts, apocalypses, Church orders, apologies etc. Briefly, the formation of the canon is also discussed and we are informed about the literacy level among the early Christians. Thereafter we are introduced to the world of the copyists and Ehrman explains how the early scribes copied texts, the different types of errors that were made (intentional and unintentional) and the problems associated with the copying of texts.
It is quite interesting to learn that even pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, were quite aware at an early date that the Christian writings were being corrupted by the scribes and even Origen had to complain about the numerous differences between the gospel manuscripts. Marcion, an early Christian, corrupted the text of certain New Testament writings available to him and Dionysius is quoted who complains that his own writings have been modified just as "the word of the Lord" had been tampered. Marcion, of course, accused other Christians of corrupting the texts. In an earlier writing, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures", Ehrman demonstrated in detail how proto-orthodox Christians corrupted the New Testament writings on occasions. It seems that the early Christians were quite aware that the writings in their possession had undergone corruption and were still being corrupted and they frequently accused each other of tampering with the texts.
I was amazed to learn how statistically small additions or deletions within texts could change the entire meaning of passages and even books. Ehrman discusses at length certain examples in this regard and shows that even unintentional changes can result in changes that alter the meaning of texts. To quote Ehrman (pp. 207-208):
"It would be wrong, however, to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. In some instances, the very meaning is at stake depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us."
The above are just a few problems. Another interesting problem is whether the doctrine of the atonement is taught in the gospel according to Luke? Further, there are immense textual problems within passages such as the sayings on divorce and remarriage in the gospels (not discussed by Ehrman but addressed in detail in D. C. Parker's - The Living Text of the Gospels) and the Lord's Prayer among others.
It is important to realize that Ehrman is not the first person to have discovered these textual problems. Instead, textual critics are quite familiar with them but seldom are these textual difficulties discussed in books aimed at the lay readers so that many people continue to adhere to the mistaken belief that there exist no significant textual problems within the New Testament effecting important theological matters. Clearly, shoddy apologists such as Giesler and Josh McDowell have done a lot to propagate a false image of the textual preservation of the gospel text - misleading countless around the globe. Ehrman sets the record straight. In another recent book, co-authored with Bruce Metzger, we read:
"Nor are these variant readings, taken as a whole, of little consequence. On the contrary, many prove to be critical for questions relating to the New Testament exegesis and theology.52"
[Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2005, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 284]
Thus it would appear that scholars are now beginning to discuss the difficult issues more openly.
It seems clear that the Gospels are not so well textually preserved as some people would have us imagine and that there exist many variations which have profound effects and bearings upon the meaning of texts and theological issues. A detailed discussion of the manuscripts of the New Testament, based on writings of scholars such as Prof. Ehrman and others, is to be found here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
Moreover, the problem of the "original text" is also discussed by Ehrman and he states that many textual critics are now beginning to doubt even if there is such a thing as an "original" to be restored. He explains the problematic nature of the issue and why we cannot get back to the "original" text itself in light of the copying practises of the first three centuries. Therefore, we can only hope to recover early forms of the text, not the "originals," and hope that these early forms are relatively close to the lost "originals".
Besides the above issues, Ehrman provides a fascinating discussion of how the various New Testament editions were produced, particularly the one by Erasmus based on a handful of late manuscripts, and how Christians reacted when certain individuals here and there stumbled across variant readings. The story of the interpolation of 1 John 5:7 (the only clear formulation of the Trinity) is amazing ? the way it was inserted into the text and the reaction of some when it was removed. Moreover, Ehrman goes on to explain how he eventually came to the conclusion that the New Testament writings were not inspired based on his evaluation of the New Testament text and its transmission.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to learn about the textual criticism and transmission of the New Testament writings! If you know nothing about this complex subject, then this is where you should start. After going through "Misquoting Jesus," it should be much easier for you to read books aimed at those who already know something about the subject."
Ian
-
Qcmbr
I didn't even realise that the Council of Nicea was an attempt to find consensus between two major theological branches of the 'church' that themselves represented multiple different viewpoints that are just as diverse as we find today. In my mind there was a general body of belief immediately following Jesus' death and that if I went back in time they would recognise 'my doctrines' as correct and that it was subsequent teachings that corrupted the church. What instead I find is a massive split between Arian thinking (Jesus is not God the Father) and the Trnitarian thinking that initially didn't include the Holy Spirit (a belief in 'homoousios' or from the same essence) but soon became the current christian orthodoxy. I also didn't realise that for at least a few years prior to the Hunnic invasion displacing the Visigoths and the political and military disaster that followed it looked as though the Arian caeser Valens might formalise Arianism as the governing dogma regarding the nature of Jesus. It was quite a close run thing.