Jesus Misquoted?

[Faith1960]

I was at a bookstore a few days ago and came across a book titled, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.” Okay, I admit, I didn’t buy it nor did I pick it up to skim it because since I don’t want to jeopardize the happiness I’ve found in returning to the Church but has anyone read this? What were your thoughts?
Even though I didn’t read it, I’m wondering what information the author wrote about and if it’s possible that Jesus was misquoted. Thoughts, anyone?

 

[JimG]

I haven’t read the book, so you’ll get a better answer from someone who has.

The author Bart Ehrman, apparently a former evangelical, now calls himself a “happy agnostic.” His field of study is apparently textual criticism of the scriptures. And the book is about textual analysis of the NT, especially with regard to the number and history of manuscripts, and possible errors made in transcribing the texts during the many hundreds of years before the invention of the printing press.

I would guess that it’s not something that has to be a threat to your faith. But there are many people to whom I suspect it would be a threat, simply because they tend to have doubts aroused by such things.

For Catholics, who have confidence that the deposit of Faith has been accurately handed down to us even in the absence of writings, I would think that this would be less of a concern. Also, in an interview I read, the interviewer posed a question as to whether he thought some people might get the impression from the book that the bible is much less reliable than they had thought. He said that could be an outcome, although that was not his thesis or intent.

In the same interview, I got the impression that he treated such people as the Marcionites, Ebionites, and Gnostics as more or less equal contenders for the ‘official’ version of Christianity, but who happened to have lost out to what he calls the “Proto-Orthodox”–people like Ignatius of Antioch and Tertullian. Strange. I always thought those people were Catholic!

 

[Faith1960]

I haven’t read the book, so you’ll get a better answer from someone who has.

The author Bart Ehrman, apparently a former evangelical, now calls himself a “happy agnostic.” His field of study is apparently textual criticism of the scriptures. And the book is about textual analysis of the NT, especially with regard to the number and history of manuscripts, and possible errors made in transcribing the texts during the many hundreds of years before the invention of the printing press.

I would guess that it’s not something that has to be a threat to your faith. But there are many people to whom I suspect it would be a threat, simply because they tend to have doubts aroused by such things.

For Catholics, who have confidence that the deposit of Faith has been accurately handed down to us even in the absence of writings, I would think that this would be less of a concern. Also, in an interview I read, the interviewer posed a question as to whether he thought some people might get the impression from the book that the bible is much less reliable than they had thought. He said that could be an outcome, although that was not his thesis or intent.

In the same interview, I got the impression that he treated such people as the Marcionites, Ebionites, and Gnostics as more or less equal contenders for the ‘official’ version of Christianity, but who happened to have lost out to what he calls the “Proto-Orthodox”–people like Ignatius of Antioch and Tertullian. Strange. I always thought those people were Catholic!

To be honest, what you’re saying the author is questioning is the same thing that’s been bugging me for quite some time, as well. Even now, a person can tell another intelligent person with a great memory a bit of information, they relay it to another, and so on. Chances are good that within a couple of minutes the information will become distorted. it becomes even more difficult for me to believe that the same thing didn’t happen over a much longer period of time back during Jesus’ time. In addition, the people during that period were often uneducated and understood far less than we do now.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have it sitting by my bed. I got it from the local library, but I’m gonna turn it back in unread. I read some and it’s just not that interesting and like you…who needs the grief?

If you want a really GREAT book that will just knock your socks off, get Treasure In Clay by Bishop Sheen.
A very powerful book!

 

[blessedtoo]

I was at a bookstore a few days ago and came across a book titled, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.” Okay, I admit, I didn’t buy it nor did I pick it up to skim it because since I don’t want to jeopardize the happiness I’ve found in returning to the Church but has anyone read this? What were your thoughts?
Even though I didn’t read it, I’m wondering what information the author wrote about and if it’s possible that Jesus was misquoted. Thoughts, anyone?

Didn’t read it because I saw the author in an interview and to me he presented as an angry and bitter man. It was the same old nonsense about the scribes making mistakes through the ages and adding stories that were not in the original manuscripts, blah, blah, blah. Heard it all before. Your answer is in this response:

For Catholics, who have confidence that the deposit of Faith has been accurately handed down to us even in the absence of writings, I would think that this would be less of a concern

.

 

[richardeekw]

I "Misquoting Jesus:
QUOTE]

Didn’t read it but here are my thoughts.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php

catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216The MOST Theological Collection
Read Chapters 7, 8, 9 Which gives a good explanation to the apparent discrepancies etc.

denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0206

 

[Reepicheep]

To be honest, what you’re saying the author is questioning is the same thing that’s been bugging me for quite some time, as well. Even now, a person can tell another intelligent person with a great memory a bit of information, they relay it to another, and so on. Chances are good that within a couple of minutes the information will become distorted. it becomes even more difficult for me to believe that the same thing didn’t happen over a much longer period of time back during Jesus’ time. In addition, the people during that period were often uneducated and understood far less than we do now.

Faith1960:
Just a couple of thoughts.
As to the chance of repeated information being distorted:
The Christians of the early centuries would be repeating this material to each other in public assemblies, during which if the speaker made any errors he would be called on them by all participants who realized the error. The collective knowledge of the assemby would act as a corrective to any errors.
Also, though most were illiterate, the material was kept in written form, and any mistakes creeping into communal memory would be corrected the first time a literate person consulted the written texts.
As to the fact that people of the time were uneducated:
Maybe so, but “uneducated” does not equal “stupid”. They were accustomed to the need to keep accurate accounts without (most of them) being able to read.
Finally, if the original material was to be trusted at all, we have Christ’s assurance “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the Age”. He would not allow us to be deprived of accurate Scriptures.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Dr.Ehrman is a rock star in Biblical criticism. He writes books for mass consumption of lay people, and other scholars would not take his views so seriously. In fact, I’d say he reads the Bible like a fundamentalist, which is how most critics of the Bible read it.

Here is a cirtique of Ehrman’s book:

denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0206

 

[Faith1960]

Dr.Ehrman is a rock star in Biblical criticism. He writes books for mass consumption of lay people, and other scholars would not take his views so seriously. In fact, I’d say he reads the Bible like a fundamentalist, which is how most critics of the Bible read it.

Here is a cirtique of Ehrman’s book:

denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0206

The reviewer says this:

< Thus a substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources, such as Bruce Metzger’s works on the text and transmission of the New Testament (including one that Ehrman himself recently helped to revise), but in slightly more popular form that is likely to reach a wider audience. What most distinguishes the work are the spins Ehrman puts on some of the data at numerous junctures and his propensity for focusing on the most drastic of all the changes in the history of the text, leaving the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not. Thus his first extended examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the originals of either Gospel, Ehrman concedes that “most of the changes are not of this magnitude” (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen- and twelve-verse additions.>

This leads to me thinking that he agrees that there are, indeed, some changes and information that isn’t accurate.

 

[Faith1960]

The reviewer says this:

< Thus a substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources, such as Bruce Metzger’s works on the text and transmission of the New Testament (including one that Ehrman himself recently helped to revise), but in slightly more popular form that is likely to reach a wider audience. What most distinguishes the work are the spins Ehrman puts on some of the data at numerous junctures and his propensity for focusing on the most drastic of all the changes in the history of the text, leaving the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not. Thus his first extended examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the originals of either Gospel, Ehrman concedes that “most of the changes are not of this magnitude” (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen- and twelve-verse additions.>

This leads to me thinking that he agrees that there are, indeed, some changes and information that isn’t accurate.

Am I wrong? Anyone?

 

[mlchance]

This leads to me thinking that he agrees that there are, indeed, some changes and information that isn’t accurate.

Those are two different issues. Were there changes? Certainly. No serious scholar of the Bible says otherwise. Does this mean the changes are a corruption? Certainly not. Consider John 3. Part way through Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, the pronoun “you” in the Greek shifts from singular (what one would expect since Jesus is talking to just Nicodemus) to the plural (what we in the South call “ya’ll”).

Why? There’s no one present but Jesus and Nicodemus. Right?

One probable explanation is that the author inserted a short sermon by Jesus at that particular point in the narrative since the sermon related directly to the topic of Jesus’ conversation. It could also be commentary by the author based on authentic Apostolic Tradition learned from Jesus, but put into such a form so as to be from the mouth of Jesus himself.

All of that said, here is one enormous problem with the “they changed the Bible” thesis. No one has ever managed to produce an unchanged Bible. Certainly there are minor differences, but there is not a single significant discrepancy in the ancient manuscripts.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JimG]

Keep in mind that Ehrman could not even engage in his own field of study if the historical documents of the New Testament were not, by and large, reliable. There could be no scholarly field of study with respect to wholly unreliable texts. Even he admits that most variations are minor.

Also keep in mind that the NT is far better documented than most other historical documents of the same and earlier (and later) periods. If we cannot trust the reliability of the NT, how can we trust that the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Cicero, Livy, and numerous others of ancient times, have been handed down to us accurately? Yet one does not often hear of popular books questioning the accuracy of those historical documents and our translations of them.

The fact is, the reliability of the NT is well demonstrated. I’m sure others on this forum could recommend other books to demonstrate this fact.

Another thing: oral tradition has not always been in the current sad state that we find it now to be in some places. For most people for most of history, oral tradition was the way that information was handed down, and handed down accurately. I might have been somewhat skeptical in my early years, before hearing my own mother repeat family stories in the same exact words, at family gatherings, year after year.

Bottom line—the scriptures are quite reliable.

 

[Faith1960]

Keep in mind that Ehrman could not even engage in his own field of study if the historical documents of the New Testament were not, by and large, reliable. There could be no scholarly field of study with respect to wholly unreliable texts. Even he admits that most variations are minor. .

Which ones are major and what are the reasons for their discrepencies?

 

[JimG]

Which ones are major and what are the reasons for their discrepencies?

Hey, I’m no scripture scholar or manuscript historian! There are numerous books about such things from orthodox sources. Before you go giving credence to the ideas of a fallen-away evangelical like this author, you might want to read some more ‘orthodox’ protestant scholars, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg

 

[Faith1960]

Hey, I’m no scripture scholar or manuscript historian! There are numerous books about such things from orthodox sources. Before you go giving credence to the ideas of a fallen-away evangelical like this author, you might want to read some more ‘orthodox’ protestant scholars, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg

I’ll put it on my list. Any more you can recommend?

 

[Faith1960]

Before you go giving credence to the ideas of a fallen-away evangelical like this author, you might want to read some more ‘orthodox’ protestant scholars, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg

It is possible that Ehrman has fallen away because he found good reason to, based on his research. That’s what I’m trying to learn.

 

[JimG]

It is possible that Ehrman has fallen away because he found good reason to, based on his research. That’s what I’m trying to learn.

Well, I don’t know anything about Ehrman except the little that I have read online, so I can’t speak to his mind or motives. But it seems more likely he has fallen vicitm to the modern disease of selective skepticism. There are many modersn scholars, Catholic, Protestant, evangelical and otherwise, who are just as scholarly and yet find the scriptures to be reliable.