Bart Ehrman, Textual Criticism and Lack of Catholic Engagement

[CharlesdeFoucld]

After reading the bits of Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that are available on Google Books, I’ve turned to Aland’s ‘Twelve Basic Rules of NT Textual Criticism’. These are the rules used to establish the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, on which almost all Catholic and Protestant translations are based.

It seem Ehrman, as far as I can tell, is heavily invested in something like rule #10:

There is truth in the maxim: lectio difficilior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”). But this principle must not be taken too mechanically, with the most difficult reading (lectio difficilima) adopted as original simply because of its degree of difficulty.

I understand the logic of this rule, but surely Catholics can’t accept that the more heretical- sounding reading must be correct (not that either version of Luke 3:22 could be regarded as heretical).

Further, this rule, taken to extremes, almost invariably would result in Ehrman’s thesis of corruptions between competing scribes.

Aland has some rules that, to my untrained eye, Ehrman seems to ignore:

#5 The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek manuscript tradition, with the version and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty.

#7 The principle that the original reading may be found in any single manuscript or version when it stands alone or nearly alone is only a theoretical possibility. Any form of eclecticism which accepts this principle will hardly succeed in establishing the original text of the New Testament; it will only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes.

My gloss of #5: You can’t put the patristic evidence ahead of the vast majority of Greek manuscript evidence that attests Luke 3:22 as ‘in whom I am well-pleased’.

My gloss of #7: If you’re basing your reading on only one manuscript, you will probably be placing your own view of things ahead of where the evidence points.

I would love to read other theories of where the patristic evidence of the variant reading of Luke 2:33 comes from, if anyone ever runs across such a theory.

 

[schaeffer]

I mentioned Father Robert Barron because I feel he is pushing the Church in this direction. He answers these arguments with scholarly weight and most importantly, humility, a trait I find hard to practice when frustration overcomes me.

I will have to look at some more significant writings of Fr Barron. He was suggested to me, and I read a few short articles by him addressing Ehrman and the like, and he sounded rather like a frustrated person rolling his eyes and batting off a bothersome fly, saying “it’s all regurgitated garbage, don’t even bother with it.”

Which, indeed, maybe the case, but I was disappointed in the lack of attention to detail, which I think would be useful in countering these things, for people who are interested in textual study rather than sensationalism.

It came off rather as someone suggested above…“the Catholic Church doesn’t have time to address this, been there, done that.”

But for Catholics asking questions today, being told “Oh we dealt with that 900 yrs ago, or last century” is something of an unsatisfying answer.

As I said, these were the few articles I saw on the internet and may in no way be representative of Fr Barron’s work. However, they are likely to be the things most people read as they are so easily accessible.

When it comes to the internet, we know it’s not usually the cream that rises to the top.

 

[schaeffer]

Maybe you guys should subscribe to Catholic Biblical Quarterly? I really am having a chuckle claiming that there’s no Catholic biblical scholars out there simply because there hasn’t been a Catholic biblical scholar who’s specifically responded to the writings of one particular anti-supernaturalist apostate popularizer and Albert Schweitzer clone. Get working on your german and french guys, your going to need it if you really want to enter the world of biblical scholarship.

Thanks for this.

I know that when it comes to scripture scholarship the Catholic Church has left no stone unturned.

 

[commenter]

I will have to look at some more significant writings of Fr Barron. He was suggested to me, and I read a few short articles by him addressing Ehrman and the like, and he sounded rather like a frustrated person rolling his eyes and batting off a bothersome fly, saying “it’s all regurgitated garbage, don’t even bother with it.”

Which, indeed, maybe the case, but I was disappointed in the lack of attention to detail, which I think would be useful in countering these things, for people who are interested in textual study rather than sensationalism.

It came off rather as someone suggested above…“the Catholic Church doesn’t have time to address this, been there, done that.”

But for Catholics asking questions today, being told “Oh we dealt with that 900 yrs ago, or last century” is something of an unsatisfying answer.

1. Ehrman’s ideas ARE regurgitated garbage. Not sure why it’s bad for Fr. Barron to point that out.
2. The Catholic Church has made many claims that refute secularism. Not sure why no one is challenging Ehrman to respond to them.
3. I’m sure somewhere there is a thread saying, that although the Church has responded to 100 prior claims of Mormonism, the Church is NOT responding to the 101st claim. “Aha! the silence is deafening! Inquiring minds want to know!”
4. Somewhere, in the Jehovah’s Witnesses literature, there is no doubt some claim that has not been recently addressed by the Catholic Church. Is this there an urgency to respond to this, and to the 1000 other groups, movements, etc, that have made some claim or assertion or “discovery” that Catholicism has not responded to in the past decade?
5. I have known Catholics intensely my entire, old life. Lots of questions about many topics. This is not a question burning in the mind of anyone I know. What if the History Channel goes off on some other topic next year (underwear in the Bible; the Samoan Inquisition; why did the Church allow the Trojan war?). Should the Church let the NY Times, etc determine its priorities in what topics to address? Don’t we have other things to do?
6. The OP’s questions have largely answered by various posters. A few times over.
7. In a courtroom, sometimes an attorney will ask essentially the same question, with slight variation in wording, over and over; not because he is curious, but to wear the witness down. The opposing attorney if alert will object, that this question “has already been asked and answered”. A fair judge will then tell the first attorney to move on. (not referring now to the OP but to Ehrman and the other scholars like him, previously cited).

 

[MarkInOregon]

I feel out of my depth. But It seems the reviews of his 1994 work that he has just been repackaging for the last 20 years “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” received positive reviews from all the sources I could find. I’ll also admit point blank, I’m afraid to delve deeper because I’m afraid Ehrman is right.

It’s been a while since I looked at this but the little looking I did left me with the impression that Ehrman overstates his case and that his conclusions are not the conclusions that should be drawn. I can review something and think that it was well written and made interesting points–giving it a positive review without believing that the author made his case or that the conclusions he draws are the proper ones. So I wouldn’t take positive reviews as an endorsement of the conclusions reached by the author. I think you owe it to yourself to dig deeper and resolve your questions–otherwise this will continue to eat at you and undermine your faith.

I will pray for you that you may find the answer to you questions in this.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[dmar198]

Have you read anything by Trent Horn of Catholic Answers, or listened to any of his radio shows? He responds to Bart Ehrman’s points frequently, especially in his discussions of the Resurrection. It is from one of his radio shows that I got the information in my sixth point above. I encourage you to listen to Trent Horn’s radio shows, where he goes into more detail. They can be found here: catholic.com/radio/shows/browse/all/all/Trent%20Horn/all

As an example of Catholic Answers contributing to the textual criticism debate, watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=fcRl5A9hnXM

 

[HoistedSheep]

I Just discovered this book, " The Incarnation of the Word of God", by Saint Athanasius. I haven’t read it yet, but it might offer an answer to your question. It’s an early text written to defend the teaching of Jesus as the begotten son of God, and even seems to distinguish between the terms “created” and “begotten”, which might provide a solid argument against Bart Ehrman’s conception of the terms in his attack on the reliability of scripture.