Textual Criticism: Some Changes in Misquoting Jesus

You go through Ehrman's entire book, and it's just difficulty after variant reading after a problem textual critics have to surmount. Thus, when we realize no doctrine is affected, we really get a feel for how reliable our manuscript traditions are. I said it a long time ago before I read Misquoting Jesus: the only reason Ehrman can say the so-called ending of Mark and story of the adulterous woman isn't original (more in a later post) is because of all the evidence he has to go through! Ehrman, with everything, he argues what is or isn't original because evidence. 

Expanding on that, Ehrman tells the reader modern textual critics are rational eclecticists. I really like this title, because it says they are being rational and individualizes their specific scholarly work with a big, impressive word which lay people don't learn. And he explains he and his fellow scholars fit the definition because of multiple criteria they use(1).

Ehrman argues that sometimes Christian scribes would alter texts to emphasize the Trinity explicitly. For instance, Acts 20:28 "the Church of the Lord, which He obtained by His own blood," or 1 Timothy 3:16 "Christ who was made manifest in the flesh."(2) None speak of God as Christ explicitly. 

How right he is with that, I'm not sure, but for all I care it could all be true. I know that the "Johannine Comma" (1 John 5:7-8) isn't original. Bruce M. Metzger said, "Now the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-4, where it talks about 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' They'll say, 'That's no in the earliest manuscripts.'
"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteen century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write." (3)

Dan Wallace also says it as "absolutely" true the verses were made up(4).

Now, if I was a Jehovah's Witness with my attitude, I would have a quick fit that scribes would defame Jesus and God. However, it's interesting to note that Ehrman said of John 1:1-18, "This highly celebrated poem speaks of the 'Word' of God, who existed with God from the beginning and was Himself God, and who 'became flesh' in Jesus Christ." (5)

(I might, upon further research, come to a conclusion that whenever the majority and diverse translators of John from Greek understand it, Jesus is obviously God. But when the Jehovah's Witnesses do, they say He is "a god." Who is right? But right now I definitely am not in a position to advance that argument. Moreover, it has been said by skeptics that the Trinity is rarely represented in the NT, if at all. But that is such an easily answerable objection, I could make it up. The danger is in the ditches. Perhaps if Paul's epistles and the like were all written to people who already knew who Jesus was, it makes sense He wouldn't be included. But sometimes it is included, and that's all we need. Wallace said, "The Bible clearly contains these four truths: the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there's only one God." [6] I thought of that before reading it. Metzger said, "[1 John 5:7-8] does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity." [3])

Ehrman points out John 1:18 was changed in some manuscripts to say "the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father," instead of "unique Son." (7) This as a variant is so silly! Since the Word, the Son of God, is obviously God in the passage, it doesn't make any difference! (Ehrman knows this, I'm not saying he doesn't agree.) 

 "Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come?" (8) Matthew 24:36 is sometimes copied to leave room for Jesus to know. Here it is notable to point out Matthew and Mark are similar, and sometimes have the same things word for word (as Ehrman explains). While Matthew's account may be questionable, Mark 13:32 does say Jesus doesn't know, and this isn't debatable.

One example of a scribe looking up from their copy to the already printed text, seeing a phrase but not telling it was repeated and leaving part out. In one of the best manuscripts Codex Vaticanus, John 17:15 leaves out "...world, but that you keep them from the..." and instead says, "I do not ask that you keep them from the evil one"! The next page points out some variants are just nonsense and it is easy to see they aren't original. I think that one fits here too(9). Even when Jesus said in Luke 22:31-32, where obviously Peter was going to fall away from Jesus as Satan requested, Jesus prayed for Peter to make the right decision, and to then turn back. His later in the chapter disowning Jesus shows obviously it was Peter's decision to sin, and God didn't encourage it, just allow it. Thus, I can't think of any parallel to why the mistranslated John 17:15 wouldn't be nonsense.

Other examples are Revelation 1:5 saying Jesus "released" us from sin or "washed" us from sin. Both words sounded the same(10). Who's right? (Ehrman suggests, and I'll bet he's probably right, it's the former.) Who cares?

There also was Romans 5:1 (coincidentally, that sounds like Revelation 1:5), where either it says "we have peace" or "let us have peace" with God(10). There is no doctrinal question whatsoever. What's not debated is the beginning that "we have been justified through faith." They could have peace with God anytime as soon as they are justified.

Mark 1:1 says Isaiah wrote something that actually is a combination of Malachi 3:1 and then Isaiah 40:3 (at least my 2011 NIV says that, Ehrman says Exodus 23:20 and Mal.). My translators obviously thought the original reads "it is written in Isaiah the prophet," not "it is written in the prophets" as some scribes changed (Ehrman says; is it possible there was an accident and it got copied?)(11). While the original reading is an arguable contradiction, there is no doctrinal change. I don't have an answer, but I think I remember reading that the OT in Bible days wasn't ordered like ours is. Perhaps the minor prophet Malachi was associated with Isaiah, the major prophet. 

Ehrman argues, a significant piece of evidence being the context of Hebrews (he had more), that Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus died "apart from God." (12) Wallace thinks it is "by the grace of God," the more common rendering in our translations, but he says it is probable Ehrman is right(13). In this post I offered an explanation for when Jesus said in Mark "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Ehrman points out this could have inspired what it says in Hebrews.

Ehrman argues one reason Luke 22:43-44 isn't original is because it presents a weak Jesus, which would parallel Mark but not the strong Jesus in Luke(14). I cited something on this arguable contradiction in this post. It bothered me the first time I realized the verses aren't in many early manuscripts, because the fact is people can get "hematidrosis," (15) where someone sweats a little bit of blood. It isn't common and usually happens under a lot of psychological stress. Did this happen? Perhaps someone saw someone else sweat blood, or did so himself, and got the idea. Or, this does seem like the type of thing someone could dream up for an embellished story. 

Ehrman points out Mark 1:41 either has Jesus feeling compassion or being angry when the leper wants to heal his hand(16). Ehrman seems to indicate this doesn't fit with a loving God, and those who try to allow it to do so are biased. One argument that Jesus was angry with the evil-ridden world is dismissed because there isn't any textual evidence (Ehrman said). Wallace chides this as too quickly dismissing possibilities, and says the text isn't clear on that (which I then realize means Mark didn't feel the need to defend Jesus there; perhaps this was because no one looked at it as a difficulty). Nevertheless, Wallace thinks Ehrman is right, and acknowledges Mark 3:5 and Mark 10:13-16 where Jesus also got angry (and Ehrman used as evidence)(17). 

Ehrman also draws attention to Hebrews 1:3: Does it say Christ "bears" all things by the word of His power, or "manifests" all things? "Saying that Christ reveals all things by his word of power is quite different from saying that he keeps the universe together by his word!" (18) There is a significant similarity, though. The latter definition seems to me to support an apologist's idea that reason comes from God, and Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1), "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 9:10). The second would indicate Jesus's Deity. For the record, Hebrews 1:8 has the Father obviously speaking of the Son as "God." The author of Hebrews didn't debate the Trinity. Did he/she say here that Jesus holds the world together, which shows the reader He is the source of reason, or just that He is the source of reason? There is no doctrinal change by any means. 

Then there is Luke 3:22(19): Ehrman says an early Greek manuscript and some Latin ones say "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." This could be argued for being an adoptionistic text: Jesus wasn't originally the Son of God but became so at His baptism. But Ehrman points out the obvious contradiction with this idea and Luke's earlier virgin birth narrative! I mean, that's the skeptical argument: Mark is adoptionistic and the virgin birth comes later because He evolved into always being God's Son. So even if Luke did write that, what would it mean? In Acts 10:37-38 Jesus is spoken of as being anointed with "the Holy Spirit and power." Perhaps the being "begotten" isn't literally becoming God's Son. Or maybe this is an adoptionistic insertion. Ehrman did say we have little to no evidence of people who think Jesus wasn't originally God's Son adding it into manuscripts(20). 

Finally, Ehrman points out in Matthew 27:34 it is said that "Jesus was given wine to drink, mixed with gall." (21) A lot of manuscripts say it was vinegar, not wine. Earlier in 26:29, Jesus said He wouldn't drink wine. Was this said to cover up a contradiction? What, Matthew contradicted himself within two chapters? No, it's easy to understand the Gospel author. Matt. 27:34 says, "There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it." So obviously by "drinking" wine, Matthew didn't mean just getting any bit of it at all.

Ehrman speaks of other changes made to emphasize Jesus as God and the Son of God (22), but nothing ever denying He is God. He begins the chapter titled "Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text" with introducing the current Christian church as "proto-orthodox." (23) This is because the current Christian belief nowadays that Jesus is the Divine Son of God, one Person and God Himself, was debated by other groups. It really makes me think, but where did they get their views? There is no evidence it was created after the New Testament texts and then the lines of manuscript transmission were chased down. On the other hand. other "Christian" groups made their own false epistles or gospels. 

Ehrman mentioned how an early scholar studied early church fathers to see how they quoted the New Testament text(24). Wallace points out how early church fathers, whose quotations start as early as the first century, are "extremely valuable" for textual criticism. He says there's more than one million quotations in them (dating from the first to thirteenth centuries), and almost the entire NT could be put together from them(25). Bart Ehrman even said with Bruce Metzger that early church father citations "would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament." (26) This reminds me of how J. Warner Wallace explains that throughout the early church fathers, the ones the first Disciples taught, to who they taught, and so on, and we see a chain(27). (We rely on copies of their works too, as practically every ancient writing is, although I remember coming across one church writer who's original manuscript was preserved.) From everyone we see the Triune God, and Jesus died for our sins.

Citations:

1. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperCollins: New York, NY. 2005), 128-32.

2. Ibid., 113-114.

3. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2016), 68-69.

4. Lee Strobel, In Defense of Jesus: Investigating Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2007), 99.

5. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 61.

6. Strobel, In Defense of Jesus, 100.

7. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 161-62.

8. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 208, cf. 95.

9. Ibid., 92-93.

10. Ibid., 93.

11. Ibid., 94-95.

12. Ibid., 144-48.

13. Strobel, In Defense of Jesus, 101.

14. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 139-44.

15. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 211.

16. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 133-37.

17. Strobel, In Defense of Jesus, 100-101.

18. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 56.

19. Ibid., 158-60.

20. Ibid., 156-57.

21. Ibid., 204.

22. Ibid., 157-58.

23. Ibid., 154.

24. Ibid., 84.

25. Strobel, In Defense of Jesus, 87-88.

26. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126. Cited in Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN. 2014), 85.

27. J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C. Cook: Colorado Springs, CO. 2013), 215-230.