Bart Ehrman, Textual Criticism and Lack of Catholic Engagement

[Kevin12]

.
3. Mormonism is closer to Catholicism than Ehrmanism. It impacts the faith of far more people. What are your thoughts on Catholics engaging Mormons?

I don’t know if this was meant to address me, but I’ll say anyway, I disagree. In the first place, while I admit my knowledge is rather limited, I would tend to say that Mormonism is pretty low hanging fruit for theological refutation. If we want to prevent people from becoming Mormons, we should donate more money to missions in the developing world where most of their converts come from, or live more (externally) Christian lives, as I admit the do more than us in most cases (at least, if you picked a random Catholic and a random Mormon family, it would be more likely that the Mormon would be less dysfunctional, at least somewhat).

Also, I would even say Ehrman is closer to Christianity than a Mormon, since Mormonism (again, based on my limited knowledge) actively denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God, whereas Ehrman only says he doesn’t know.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

First - Yeah, my mistake, I think he does say something about Luke 2:33, but that’s not it (I think he says Luke 1-2 are interpolations anyway)

Second and Third - It’s “today” that is seems to be the main point.

The Greek word Ehrman is translating “generated” is almost certainly some variant of “gennao”, which means to “make to come into being” or to “give birth to”. This is very important, because the passage is about BAPTISM, and the scriptural teaching on baptism involves a new birth.

In that context, who is it that is “God’s son” “newly begotten”? It is not Jesus, in his Divine person; it is the new Adam, in his human person. In Christ’s baptism, He puts to death the old Adam, and brings to life the new Adam. That seems to be the symbolism there.

 

[abucs]

Okay (and mind you, I want to be convinced), but the fact is that, in some of manuscripts of Luke, Jesus sweating blood is not included, but it is in others, usually later ones. I don’t think you can just assume that this is was introduced to discredit Docetists, but it doesn’t seem like an intellectual embarrassment to ask if it might be. Also, I think textual criticism is used by perfectly orthodox scholars as well, so I don’t know that the entire field deserves to be impugned.

I agree that the whole concept of biblical criticism should not be impugned and I agree that honestly asking questions and honestly seeking answers is not an intellectual embarrassment. In fact it is a very worthwhile pursuit.

It is the unsubstantiated political opinions dressed up as biblical scholarship that is an intellectual embarrassment and there has been plenty of that over the years.

 

[commenter]

Those who have seen the debates between Ehrman, and like minded people, and Protestant scholars: how did the debates go? Do you think the evangelicals were able to communicate any points of Christianity that Ehrman or Dawkins - or the audience were likely unaware of?

Aside from the entertainment value, who do you think benefits most from a debate between Ehrman and a Christian scholar? How do they benefit?

I know people I admire the most, like C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton were always ready to debate. Lewis even set up a program, I think called the Socratic Forum or something, at Oxford, for just this purpose. I just don’t know if the debates we’re seeing now - in the age of the soundbite, short attention span, commercial and political slogans - have anything like the impact of the debates of Lewis and Chesterton eras, when people relied much more on logic. My suspicion is that the debates of 80 years ago focused more attention on the strength of the arguments themselves, whereas the debates now focus more on the skill of the arguer, and how concisely (not how logically) he can make his point. There’s a reason why commercials now last 15 seconds rather than 1 or 2 minutes, like in early TV.

But I honestly don’t know.

 

[Gorgias]

Second and Third - It’s “today” that is seems to be the main point.

And this bothers you, that the word ‘today’ is used? As dmar mentioned, God is quoting Psalm 2:7; the word ‘today’ appears in the Gospel because it appears there in Psalms! (After all, if the psalm only applied to David, how would the word ‘today’ there make sense? God is speaking to His anointed king, a grown man, and says “today I have begotten you”?) By Ehrman’s standard – which, one must keep in mind, is a fundamentalist standard – the words must make sense on the purely literal, surface level. It’s this basis that leads him astray, and is the reason that Catholics might not find the need to defend against him – his grounds are ones which we do not accept.

Fourth - So is it the case that Ehrman is misrepresenting Adoptionists? Because the way he said it (and it did make sense at least in context), the Adoptionists would have thought of Jesus as just a man who was given divine power?

I would say that Ehrman is misrepresenting the Church’s response to heresy (in general) rather than misrepresenting any particular heresy’s case. Suggesting that the Church changed its Holy Books to meet the challenges of a particular age isn’t making a claim about the challenge raised, but rather, is claiming moral bankruptcy by the Church!

If this is his claim, then he needs to substantiate it. Merely pointing at differences in text does not prove motive (that is, a conspiracy); it merely proves that there were differences in the text. Merely pointing at controversies of the day does not prove motive; it merely proves that the Church was challenged by heterodox theologies. It falls to Ehrman to find a smoking gun; short of that, he simply relies on supposition and innuendo.

if there are at least a few cases where he can point to an earlier manuscript variant and say “They changed this deliberately to make the text say something different than it originally said” - I think that’s something that needs refuting.

No – if he can point to some proof of “deliberate change”, then that would require refutation. As it is, it only requires us to respond, “you have presented no proof upon which to rest that claim.”

 

[schaeffer]

I have not seen Erhlman debate, but I have read several of his books.

He is a scholar and in the books he presents himself as a scholar. He explains the methods he uses to come to his conclusions. He often says that many other scholars disagree with him on certain points. He says that while he himself does not believe Jesus is God, he does not argue that others should not but that he feels from some of the historical writings the early apostles did not hold that view of Jesus.

I have read other books by other scholars that also speak of “forgeries” and how they were a regular, if not accepted part of sharing ideas and theories. I have read books on other ancient texts, having nothing to do with Christianity, where the same type of scholarly methods are applied to the texts, and there is likewise scholarly debate about them.

Of course religious texts and scriptures are especially dear to many people’s hearts, understandably so. But I think it is fair and reasonable for people to ask themselves if they believe that such methods are valid when reviewing ancient texts or not, and not also have an agenda of accepting them when they serve one’s personal preferences and rejecting them when they do not.

Also, a great deal of texts do involve some level of “mythology” or metaphor, etc in order to get their point across. They “flesh out” what are considered important aspects of the theme. They may or may not be factually accurate in the strictest sense, but neither are they lies or necessarily meant to mislead, rather the ides is to lead to what is considered the fact, to drive it home.

There are a number of ancient texts from early Christianity that the Church chose not to include for various reasons, it is likely that not every aspect of those texts was wrong, but overall did not carry the true message, and it is possible that every fact in the chosen scripture might not be absolute fact, but it does carry the true message.

Names and places might be changed, information from one source later added into another text when that information became available etc. These are things that happen in both ancient texts and not so ancient texts. Think of revised editions of text books, etc. This does not automatically render either the old or new version totally invalid.

Modern Christianity does seem especially sensitive to the idea that their religion, like all others, contains a certain amount of mythology. It also contains mysticism that cannot be transmitted in stories describing events, and therefore requires theology to explain it.

So if it turns out that certain facts didn’t occur exactly the way they were originally written, and that after something was explained theologically someone went back and worked that into the original story, that does not render it automatically invalid. Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Church owns the scriptures, the scriptures are there to carry the message of the Church and the Church does get to choose what it includes in it’s own writings.

Ehrlman is not studying the theology of the Church. He is studying ancient texts. He can say there is evidence that this or that passage was later added or edited, the same way any other scholar of ancient texts would do with the texts they study.

Ehrlman studies texts as texts, not as scripture of his own faith. Anyone uncomfortable with Ehrlman’s scholarly conclusions can read hundreds of other scholars studies of the same texts.

The fact is that there were and always have been people who interpreted the teachings and life of Jesus differently. Even during his own life, the people who KNEW him had very different ideas about who he was and what his purpose was. In the early church there were different sects based on a wide variety of beliefs about Christ. Those are facts, ,they are part of scripture, (read Acts) they are part of Church history. The Church has always included writings that refute what is considered heresy, even way back when.

 

[Kevin12]

No – if he can point to some proof of “deliberate change”, then that would require refutation. As it is, it only requires us to respond, “you have presented no proof upon which to rest that claim.”

He can at least say “The account was not there in the earliest versions, but it is in later versions”. But why was something that wasn’t in the earliest originals put into them - why did the scribes change it?

 

[57Bill]

I appreciate the reference. But wouldn’t it be of merit to defend against Ehrman’s statements essentially that what became the Church became so by changing the earliest manuscripts to suppress dissent? That seems like a fairly serious charge. I know that someone has claimed to know a student in one of Ehrman’s lectures who, upon hearing Ehrman’s firm assertion that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem (likely an assertion that Luke 1-2 are later additions), broke into tears. I know that I am personally distressed by it, greatly in fact. But it seems like like there are only two sides in this argument - Evangelicals who hold to Biblical inerrancy and Atheist/Agnostic critics like Ehrman who treat it as a historical document they believe proves the early Church was dominated by views we would now call heresies. There don’t seem to be any Catholics engaged.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear or if I am misunderstanding your question to me.I will try to answer what I think is your question.

The book I mentioned does so. The title is misleading in a way. The Heresy is attacked, not the Orthodoxy. Andreas Kostenberger is by no means a Catholic apologist, yet his book supports Orthodoxy as being through out the new churches as well as numerous correspondences between bishops of these Scriptures. The new churches did not live in a vacuum of its own Christianity as Ehrman implies., although each had its problems that St Paul addresses in the NT. The first time that I know of that scrolls were being replaced as a means of transporting Scripture into a more portable and transportable codex (book form).

 

[schaeffer]

He can at least say “The account was not there in the earliest versions, but it is in later versions”. But why was something that wasn’t in the earliest originals put into them - why did the scribes change it?

Texts are revised all the time, not just religious texts, not just ancient texts.

They are often revised when new information, or new understandings of information become available.

When this refers to religious texts SOMETIMES, after something has been worked out theologically or from new inspiration, things are revised or amended. If one has faith that the person doing the revision was doing so with proper authority, then one is likely to accept the revisions.

Sometimes the revision or addition is noted as such, sometimes they are not. Scholars study the texts and note these things.

 

[schaeffer]

The new churches did not live in a vacuum of its own Christianity as Ehrman implies., although each had its problems that St Paul addresses in the NT.

Anything I have read of his implies the exact opposite and very much explains the texts in the complex setting of their time.

 

[Gorgias]

He can at least say “The account was not there in the earliest versions, but it is in later versions”. But why was something that wasn’t in the earliest originals put into them - why did the scribes change it?

That’s a reasonable question, if it is the case. (In the example you provided, dmar answered that it’s not the case that there were insertions as claimed.) But, even if there were changes, then it’s still unreasonable to make an unsubstantiated claim and then demand a rebuttal.

 

[Kevin12]

Ehrlman is not studying the theology of the Church. He is studying ancient texts. He can say there is evidence that this or that passage was later added or edited, the same way any other scholar of ancient texts would do with the texts they study.

Ehrlman studies texts as texts, not as scripture of his own faith. Anyone uncomfortable with Ehrlman’s scholarly conclusions can read hundreds of other scholars studies of the same texts.

Since I take it from your lack of affiliation listed, you are not a believer. Which is fine, but almost none of what you are talking about has any relevance to what I’m talking about. You seem to be suggesting that just by mentioning Ehrman, I am expressing discomfort or saying what he is doing should not be done. I don’t think that. I’m asking why this debate is dominated by agnostics on the one hand and Evangelicals on the other.

The thing is, I think the statement, “Ehrlman is not studying the theology of the Church. He is studying ancient texts. He can say there is evidence that this or that passage was later added or edited, the same way any other scholar of ancient texts would do with the texts they study” is incorrect. The theology of the Church is exactly what he is studying - the entire thesis of most of his books seems to be about the Christology of the early Church. He does just say “The text has been changed” and leave it at that - he specifically explain why he thinks they were changed, and says it was for theological reasons.

I’m actually completely unconcerned with “What actually happened” - and I think Ehrman is as well. He is just talking about texts, what they originally said and why they don’t say that any more in some cases.

 

[Kevin12]

That’s a reasonable question, if it is the case. (In the example you provided, dmar answered that it’s not the case that there were insertions as claimed.) But, even if there were changes, then it’s still unreasonable to make an unsubstantiated claim and then demand a rebuttal.

But is the claim unsubstantiated, is what I am asking. In fact, this theologian at the Fuller Seminary in San Francisco seems to support Ehrman quite vehemently against Evangelicals, but as far as I can tell, he is a believing Christian who affirms the resurrection. But then again, with many so called “progressive Christians” its often impossible to tell whether or not they are simply speaking metaphorically when they talk about miracles.

 

[schaeffer]

I’m asking why this debate is dominated by agnostics on the one hand and Evangelicals on the other.
.

I expect the reason is that the Catholic Church has been studying the texts both in a scholarly and theological sense for thousands of years. They already know all the things he says, and have dealt with it.

Again, the Church’s teachings “won” the debate. They codified the scriptures and beliefs, both inclusions, exclusions and any revisions. There is nothing to argue or debate.

For groups, religious or antireligious who have an agenda and want to prove the Church is wrong, or at fault, this becomes an issue, because they want it to be one.

For the Catholic Church, I believe, it is a nonissue.

When I was a kid, for some reason, being adopted was considered some kind of stigma. There were times when some child overheard parents mention that so and so was adopted and then the next day on the playground they’d jeer at the child in mention “you’re adopted” as if it was big horrible news.

It was a statement of fact, and there is nothing wrong with being adopted, nor does it change the relationship of that child with their adoptive parents.

I think this is the same thing…someone who has an issue with “adoption” or revision, gets all upset and tries to make a false issue out of a fact.

What is there to “debate”?

This wasn’t there, then it was later added, most likely to address an erroneous heresy. Unless one has an agenda against the group who addressed the erroneous heresy, it is a non issue.

I think that is why the Catholic Church doesn’t bother with it. Their own scholars have done the research, unless someone is actually presenting false information there is nothing to debate.

The Evangelicals are late to the game. They aren’t the ones who codified scripture, perhaps they worry some house of cards they have built will fall in the face of facts. If they are Sola Scriptura, then any “challenge” against scripture would be considered a threat.

The Catholic Church holds that it is built on truth and thus has nothing to fear, certainly not facts.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

On Ehrman’s blog, he says that the only extant Greek manuscript that has Luke 3:22 as ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ is the 5th century Codex Bezae. Ehrman says, ‘The Greek manuscripts that were produced before Bezae, and all those produced afterwards, have a different reading, the one you will find in most Bible translations, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.”’

It seems he is hypothesizing that this is the older tradition not based on extant manuscripts, but based on patristic witness. I suppose it’s possible that Codex Bezae represents an older tradition that was subsequently wiped out, or that there were multiple textual traditions all along.

It just seems like a really flimsy foundation to reconstruct anything at all, much less to ascribe motives. Why couldn’t a later scribe, remembering the psalms, accidently transcribe the version in Codex Bezae? Why couldn’t a Church Father, who often quoted scripture from memory, accidentally or intentionally gloss Luke 3:22 with the theologically rich psalms without having adoptionism in mind at all?

But I haven’t read Ehrman’s book, and I’m not a member of his blog, so I can’t see full articles…

 

[abucs]

Some Catholic responses :

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
catholic.com/tracts/the-divinity-of-christ
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=689

Hello Kevin,

I spoke previously about liberal scholars proposing a view and then demanding it to be proved wrong. You have to be careful of this. It is up to the scholar to put forward a convincing case otherwise it is speculation.

We also have to remember that biblical scholars don’t get anywhere unless they are saying something new. After 2000 years of Biblical study t is pretty difficult to come up with something new unless you start stretching credulity.

Be careful about postulations that are unfounded. If I claimed aliens beamed Jesus up into a spaceship and healed Him. would you go around worrying about how to prove me wrong? If I postulate such a thing it is meaningless unless I have reliable and explicit evidence. Where is Ehrman’s explicit evidence?

Also by the end of the first century there were Christian communities all over the near East with Bishops. Obviously these people would have had ties with eye-witnesses. The closer to Jesus the more authority they would have in those communities. Consider Paul the anti-Christian writing his epistles. Consider the Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, placed there by St Peter and disciple of St John the Apostle :

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3836

It is interesting that one of the first disagreements regarding Christianity was not whether Jesus was divine, but if he was fully human. That should tell us something.

The idea that the early Church altered things to suit their own ideas has to be proved. Who changed it? Why did they change it? When did they change it? How could they do it so completely? Why is there no argument from the early Christians on such records being changed? There is no case that I can see.

You might find this video helpful. It contains Habermas discussing Bart Erhman and how an early Christian creed can be found to have been present right at the beginning of Christianity. It is not a Catholic response but hopefully it helps.

youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

 

[Kevin12]

Some Catholic responses :

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
catholic.com/tracts/the-divinity-of-christ
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=689

Hello Kevin,

I spoke previously about liberal scholars proposing a view and then demanding it to be proved wrong. You have to be careful of this. It is up to the scholar to put forward a convincing case otherwise it is speculation.

The thing is, that plenty of other scholars agree with him. At least, when I looked up reviews of “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” on JSTOR, most of them were quite positive, and at least half of them were from seminarians, so I don’t know that it was just liberal atheistic historians.

Be careful about postulations that are unfounded. If I claimed aliens beamed Jesus up into a spaceship and healed Him. would you go around worrying about how to prove me wrong? If I postulate such a thing it is meaningless unless I have reliable and explicit evidence. Where is Ehrman’s explicit evidence?

Well, he discusses that in the book. It seems like most of the people responding to this thread are using this sort of response instead of actually addressing his arguments for why he believes this.

The idea that the early Church altered things to suit their own ideas has to be proved. Who changed it? Why did they change it? When did they change it? How could they do it so completely? Why is there no argument from the early Christians on such records being changed? There is no case that I can see.

I think he says the scribes changed it in the time before Constantine. I don’t think he argues they did it “completely”. And I imagine he would say, people just accepted these changes because they were made by those in authority.

 

[Kevin12]

On Ehrman’s blog, he says that the only extant Greek manuscript that has Luke 3:22 as ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ is the 5th century Codex Bezae. Ehrman says, ‘The Greek manuscripts that were produced before Bezae, and all those produced afterwards, have a different reading, the one you will find in most Bible translations, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.”’

It seems he is hypothesizing that this is the older tradition not based on extant manuscripts, but based on patristic witness. I suppose it’s possible that Codex Bezae represents an older tradition that was subsequently wiped out, or that there were multiple textual traditions all along.

It just seems like a really flimsy foundation to reconstruct anything at all, much less to ascribe motives. Why couldn’t a later scribe, remembering the psalms, accidently transcribe the version in Codex Bezae? Why couldn’t a Church Father, who often quoted scripture from memory, accidentally or intentionally gloss Luke 3:22 with the theologically rich psalms without having adoptionism in mind at all?

But I haven’t read Ehrman’s book, and I’m not a member of his blog, so I can’t see full articles…

This is exactly the sort of question I wish Catholic scholars were addressing, instead of just Evangelicals.

 

[Duane1966]

Is it just me, or do others think if the Church did change scripture to conform to their ideology, that they did a terrible job?

Like wouldn’t you have Jesus say: Peter you are rock…and you will be head of my church and of the other Apostles as will your successors? And this is my body And I AM NOT BEING SYMBOLIC? And change some of Jesus’ quotes to be word for word out of the disputed books? Baptize in the name of…and INFANTS also? And put the word TRINITY in also?

 

[abucs]

The thing is, that plenty of other scholars agree with him. At least, when I looked up reviews of “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” on JSTOR, most of them were quite positive, and at least half of them were from seminarians, so I don’t know that it was just liberal atheistic historians.

Well, he discusses that in the book. It seems like most of the people responding to this thread are using this sort of response instead of actually addressing his arguments for why he believes this.

I think he says the scribes changed it in the time before Constantine. I don’t think he argues they did it “completely”. And I imagine he would say, people just accepted these changes because they were made by those in authority.

I am from a scientific background. Show me Bart’s proof. Otherwise it is speculation. You also have to be aware of the strong anti-supernaturalism politics that was present in Theology last century. Saying certain scholars agree says very little. Saying why they agree gets us further. A reasonable proof of what they say would give us an opportunity to have a reasonable discussion.

My use of the word ‘completely’ was not for specific events which may or may not have happened but in the general speculation by Bart that the divinity of Christ was created by followers of Jesus and that the early Christians had thought something different.

In order for Barts unfounded speculation to be correct such a fabrication would have to be complete. It would be complete in the sense of textual alterations, a removal of any historical record of conflict over the changes and complete alterations to the beliefs of every geographical community of early Christians. This objection is listed with all my other stated obstacles to believing Bart’s speculation. Any sort of historical proof from Bart is necessary before intelligent discussion can take place.