…Ehrman’s book is one more in the “debunk orthodox Christian faith” genre. If you’re a New Testament scholar, especially an articulate one, as is Ehrman, and if you can get somebody to publish a book called Misquoting Jesus, you’re going to sell a lot of books, and get on secular radio programs, so you’ll sell a lot more books, and get more secular press, etc. etc. It does seem more than ironic to me that NPR did an interview with Ehrman, with content that undermines orthodox Christianity, only eleven days before Christmas. I doubt it’s because they expected Christians to be giving this book as Christmas presents. Moreover, I expect that when the orthodox corrective to Ehrman’s book is published, NPR won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. (I’d love to be proved wrong on this point, however.) So, though Ehrman is a much more responsible and balanced scholar than many in the Jesus Seminar, his popular writing and the popular attention it is getting reminds me of what happened with the Seminar’s attempt to undermine orthodox faith.
Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
In sum, Ehrman’s latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes up short on genuine substance about his primary contention. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.
…in the historical model that Ehrman presents, there are weaknesses in his argument in Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Jesus is a book that attempts to engage with a theological topic, one that has been important to Ehrman since his involvement in a group he describes as ‘fundamentalist’. However, in his attempt to disprove the divine verbal inspiration of Scripture, Ehrman does not engage with any of the most intelligent representatives of this position.
I would maintain, however, that, if the history of textual transmission is as Ehrman maintains it is, then it is really rather unreasonable of him to be so certain that his reconstruction of the earliest forms of the text are correct. If there were scribes who not infrequently introduced alterations into their texts, and the changes they introduced were capable of spreading across almost the entire range of manuscripts available to us, then we must be rather uncertain of what the earliest form of the text is. At one level this is what Ehrman himself maintains. And yet time and again Ehrman claims to be able to tell us what is earlier and what is later, and something of the theological convictions and motivation of those who introduced a variant in the text.
My book is about how the NT got changed by the scribes, and here I insist that there are certain things that can be stated as factually true. I try to state these things as clearly as I can in the book. There are over 5000 Greek mss of the NT. These all differ from one another. The differences number in the hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant and don’t matter for much of anything. But some of the differences are very significant and can change the meaning of a passage or even of an entire book. Is there any textual critic who can say that these are not facts?
There was a tragic shooting at a baptist church in Illinois on Sunday. Death in any regard is a terrible thing. But stories like this cut to the heart of our human experience and force us to face the worst of what we can become.
It is in times like that that we are given an opportunity to accept the fragility and uncertainty of our humanity. To stand naked and exposed and mourn with despair, uncertainty and a loss of hope - even in the midst of strong faith.
I read the immediate response of the executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association, Nate Adams, and it made me sad. Not so much because of the exact words of what he said, but because in these moments, the rest of the world isn’t looking on you with pointed fingers and condemnation saying “You are wrong. Your god doesn’t exist. I told you so.” But his words made me feel like he was trying to reassure the world and the rest of his denomination that they didn’t have to worry. Yes this was tragic, but God is still God - don’t question that.
He said, “Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything, that He allows evil and free will to have their way in tragedies like this is a mystery in many ways. But we know we can trust Him no matter what, and draw close to Him in any circumstances.”
That statement may be theologically correct, by his interpretation, but to me it is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It heaps burning coals on the heads of the family and community who are in the midst of a tragic crisis. A man has died before he should have. A senseless murder has taken place. If you believe those words, please don’t speak them. Keep them to yourself and trust that your God is big enough to make his truth known.
with despair, uncertainty and a loss of hope - even in the midst of strong faith.