Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Public forum to discuss interesting and helpful books.
User avatar
Euhemerus
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 15:56

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by Euhemerus »

SamBee wrote:
The KJV is translated almost exclusively from Erasmus' work, which was based almost exclusively on a single 12th century manuscript that is acknowledged by experts to be one of the worst available.
That's a bit of a biased statement, but anyway.
I admit it is definitely a generalization, but it's pretty accurate. Not sure what your sources are but Ehrman mentions this several times. The KJV was translated by 47 scholars using the textus receptus (see here). The textus receptus was a series of manuscripts produced by Erasmus. Erasmus only had 6 manuscripts available to him for his translation (though he had studied others). Most of his work relies on one 12th century manuscript called the "Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2." The other manuscripts were partials. For the parts of the NT wherein he had no manuscripts he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. This is where we get the Johannine Comma from. I think my statement is pretty accurate.
SamBee wrote:Besides which, many of the contemporary Bible translations use source material which agrees with RC doctrine (since the Catholic church backs some of them) or else tone down the anti-homosexual material (e.g. NIV) because of the personal preferences of some of those involved, such as Virginia Mellenkott and Marten H. Woudstra. Say what you like about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality/phobia, but changing the translation to suit yourself is not right. A translation should keep the sense of the original.
That's because they all use the same source manuscript, the Textus Receptus which is one of the worst available.
SamBee wrote:
I would love to see Ehrman's analysis of the JST Bible. I suspect he would dismiss it as not that great a translation.
The JST isn't a translation of the existing manuscripts, it's either supposedly an explanation of what's really meant, or a revelation of what the original said, IMHO.
That's correct. I thought I made that clear. That's why I think Ehrman would find it unimpressive. Joseph was not being a textual critic but a revelator.
SamBee wrote:
g. Alterations minimizing pagans.
Not sure why you include this, or the woman caught in adultery. The story of the woman caught in adultery fits in with many of the other teachings given IMHO.
Not sure what you mean. The point of textual criticism is to discover what was in the original. According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That's the whole point. The alterations minimizing pagans were one of the sets of intentional modifications that scribes and translators inserted to elevate their own ideas and theologies. Hence it is an embellishment of the original and does not belong.
Don't believe everything you think
- bumper sticker I saw one day
User avatar
jamison
Posts: 225
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 20:14

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by jamison »

I don't think Misquoting Jesus is a must read for everybody. At least do the following after you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the mission of Jesus Christ: If I was going to approach the New Testament from a healthy LDS approach then read the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). Take at least two LDS Institute Classes; one on the gospels, and the second on Acts to the Apostles. I would get grounded into what is actually in the New Testament; why it was written, what was written. John and Paul are a few of the writers who let us know why they are writing. I would read James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ along with the Gospels; that provides a pretty good commentary from someone who wrote a book as an Apostle in the Upper Rooms of the Salt Lake Temple. Then by this time after serious study I would then read Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I agree with a lot of what Ehrman says because it is logical and makes sense, however, I do not believe everything he says because (1) everything is arguable (he's an academic) (2) Real-important truth that is arrived at differently than scholars and science arrive at truth is more important. (3) Be careful not to scrutinize to the point to where you abandon the first four principles of the Gospel and a testimony of the savior. Too many academics and philosophers out in the world will commit the straw-man argument where if they find a flaw here, and a flaw there, they will say the whole thing is hogwash. Never, never do that-you discredit yourself by doing so, and will lose more than you will gain. I have advanced degrees and have gotten into a lot of head trips and I realize that (1) To be learned is good if you hearken to the counsels of God (2 Nephi 9:28-29). If you are not spiritually healthy you shouldn't be on the path to prove or disprove something from purely a carnal mindset (logic alone). Remember (2) to be spiritually minded is life eternal; to be carnally minded is death. Yes, it is true that we do not believe in the infallibility of scripture. But, we do believe in truth as dictated by the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Holy Ghost you shall know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:5. I know from experience that if I am angry, have bad thoughts or have sinned the Spirit leaves me and then I am left alone. In a situation like this one is very vulnerable to any wind of doctrine of cunning logical explanation. The apostle Paul does a great job talking about this subject. Nevertheless, Ehrman makes many great points and I liked his book.
"Ignorance, fear, and conflict are the basic elements of everyday consciousness" Marvin Harris -- Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.
User avatar
jamison
Posts: 225
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 20:14

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by jamison »

A great source that surveys the historical background for any textual criticism, but really strikes at the issue of Apostasy in ancient Christianity is an LDS source: Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy by Noel B. Reynolds. Chapter 8 within this work is entitled "The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity" written by John Gee. This chapter and work overall really strikes at the heart of the matter of Christian Apostasy which pretty much occurred by the second century AD.
"Ignorance, fear, and conflict are the basic elements of everyday consciousness" Marvin Harris -- Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.
User avatar
jamison
Posts: 225
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 20:14

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by jamison »

Euhemerus wrote,
According to Ehrman (and many other textual critics of the NT) the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original and hence should not be in the bible. That's the whole point.
Because of the 5500 different variant texts of the New Testament that are in existence, I don't fully agree with this point. Brian Hauglid a professor of religion of BYU stated in a paper on textual criticism the following: (Religious Studies Center volume 8 no. 2 "Searching For God's Word in New Testament Textual Criticism")

"One other important example of a large group of verses not found in most manuscripts is the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11. Interestingly, the account is inserted in five other locations in various manuscripts, such as after John 7:44, 21:25, and even after Luke 21:38. Textual critics argue that the vocabulary and style of these verses differ considerably from the rest of the Gospel of John and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12. Yet scholars generally agree that the antiquity of the story and its place in Christianity result in a beloved account that merits it a double-bracketed place in the Greek New Testament.[29] Again, that John did not write these verses does not mean that the story of the adulterous woman is not true. The question of addition and omission is an important aspect of the textual critics’ work of determining whether a text is original."

I just wanted to clarify that perhaps this story was taken out of another Biblical passage in an attempt to harmonize the four gospels by a scribe and that is why it was inserted in John. It is a lot like the last 12 verses of the book of Mark, they are true in harmony with other gospels on the resurrection, but perhaps not written by Mark but inserted by a scribe.
"Ignorance, fear, and conflict are the basic elements of everyday consciousness" Marvin Harris -- Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by SilentDawning »

Old-Timer wrote:Great book - and great review. I also recommend it highly - especially for those who are beginning to realize that even scripture can be the perspective of the writers and translators, not Absolute Truth from God's mouth to paper or plates. (but rarely paper plates)

Thanks!
I want to echo this...just as conference talks often represent the opinions of the speakers rather than absolute truth, I think the same can be said of interpretations/writings of people who lived during the time of Jesus. At a minimum, what Euheremus has offered here in his review solidifies my positon that the Bible isn't some magic book to be worshipped as the be-all, end-all. I hear people parse the words of the Bible all the time in sermons on TV, and it makes me think they are ascribing a level of precision in the Bible's language that can't possibly exist.

And I agree with Ray's quote above -- and say that I think even the Bible is probably laden with interpretation. I also wonder how much of it is lore, and how much is distorted by people's memories or tendency to embellish.

People embellish their testimonies all the time; or write to create a certain impression they think is valuable -- is it possible the early writers of the books known as the Bible did the same thing? It wouldn't surprise me.

I think it would be a funny movie to portray a people who experience a truly divine intervention from a Heavenly Being of some kind -- perhaps God. Someone is charged with writing it all down by the Heavenly Being, and makes a grammatical error. This leads to a comic litany of events that leads to the culture adopting something incredibly outlandish and stupid, believing wholeheartedly that they are acting in ways prescribed by God -- when actually, all they are doing is acting on a spelling error. Sacrificing their lives and their possessions, all for some error in transcription of language.

And then, when the spelling error is brought to light through later revelation from the heavenly being, the people REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT because they have hallowed the book to the point of almost making it an idol. Others leave the religion altogether because they realize "The Book" is no longer infallable -- effectively leaving the religion upon actually learning the absolute truth it was meant to portray.

I image you could have a a lot of fun with the plot of that movie. I'm half-inspired to go and write it ......it would be an analogy that would probably incite the rest of the Christian world against me, however.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
Old-Timer
Site Admin
Posts: 17243
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by Old-Timer »

Not to pick on any denomination intentionally, but there is a great example of what SD is mentioning (about meaning changing with simple grammatical alteration) within the Jehovah's Witness version of the Bible. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, since it's post facto editing, but . . .

In the KJV, Luke 23:43 says:
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.


The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a literal state of sleep until the resurrection at the end of the world, so they can't accept the implication of that verse. Therefore, in their version it says:
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.


Changing one comma (and rearranging the subsequent two words) changes the entire meaning of the verse.

Finally, the internal contradictions in the Bible alone (e.g., "God is a spirit." vs. "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.") should make it clear that what we have is highly suspect as a literal word-for-word transmission from God to man. Thus, I believe "as far as it is translated correctly" includes "transmitted by the original author" within the parameters of "translated correctly".
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
User avatar
Brian Johnston
Posts: 3499
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 06:17
Location: Washington DC

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by Brian Johnston »

SilentDawning wrote:I image you could have a a lot of fun with the plot of that movie.
SD, you HAVE to go rent or buy the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian." It's one of my all-time favorite comedies. It's a parody of the Jesus story, very high-brow historical humor, and very Monty Python. Those guys are history buffs outside of their comedy.

It's about a young man named Brian, who through a series of slapstick accidents and misunderstandings is mistaken for the Messiah. The crucifixion seen at the end of the movie with everyone singing and whistling is comedy genius:

Here's a Youtube link to the clip
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... I5m_IsvWPA
"It's strange to be here. The mystery never leaves you alone." -John O'Donohue, Anam Cara, speaking of experiencing life.
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by SilentDawning »

I saw it many, many years ago. It was definitely offensive to Christians, but given my sometimes irreverent sense of humour, I remember liking it.

I think the plot I'm envisioning would fit into that mold of humor, but would be non-specific to any one religion. People with a penchant for allegorical thinking might see that I'm really talking about the Bible, or perhaps even Mormonism, or any other religion that claims to share divine knowledge with others.

There is also a movie I've never seen called "The Gods Must Be Crazy" that I've never seen; I've wondered if it has anything to do with people's interpretation events in a religious way.
Last edited by SilentDawning on 15 Oct 2010, 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
Old-Timer
Site Admin
Posts: 17243
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by Old-Timer »

I actually thought of "The Life of Brian" when I read your comment, SD. It is beast, as my kids would say - or rockalicious.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
User avatar
flower
Posts: 212
Joined: 20 Jan 2010, 10:06
Location: Sandy, Utah
Contact:

Re: Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Post by flower »

SilentDawning wrote:I think it would be a funny movie to portray a people who experience a truly divine intervention from a Heavenly Being of some kind -- perhaps God. Someone is charged with writing it all down by the Heavenly Being, and makes a grammatical error. This leads to a comic litany of events that leads to the culture adopting something incredibly outlandish and stupid, believing wholeheartedly that they are acting in ways prescribed by God -- when actually, all they are doing is acting on a spelling error. Sacrificing their lives and their possessions, all for some error in transcription of language.
Love it! It also reminds me of the following joke which you've probably all heard...

A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He noticed, however, that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this. He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk said, 'We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.' The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him. He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.

He asked what was wrong.

'The word is 'celebrate,' not 'celibate'!' sobbed the head monk.
SilentDawning wrote:There is also a movie I've never seen called "The Gods Must Be Crazy" that I've never seen; I've wondered if it has anything to do with people's interpretation events in a religious way.
If I remember right this move is all about a group of tribal Africans trying to understand modern civilization. (a glass bottle, which they thought was a gift from God, was tossed from an airplane flying overhead, and their discovery of it caused eventual contention among the tribe until they decided to return it) Great movie!
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling

http://tinymosquito.blogspot.com/
Post Reply