Textual Criticism: The Two Made-Up Stories
Bart Ehrman exposed two actual passages that aren't original at all. They are the so-called ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery (usually placed as John 7:53-8:11). The fact of the matter is that, at any rate, obviously God did not leave enough evidence to show us if He inspired the passage. And I am firmly convinced we can prove they weren't inspired at all.
The next two verses contain errors along with truths. Jesus never appeared in a different "form." I remember reading a book where someone said Jehovah's Witnesses once used it to argue Jesus didn't have a physical body. In Luke 24, Jesus did indeed appear to two disciples, but when they told them about it, the Eleven were already proclaiming Jesus had risen!
Next, in Luke and John there is something like parallels to rebuking them, but not because they didn't believe the others. This could have happened, but we don't have assurance with other proven texts.
Where Jesus is said to have ordered them to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation," this has appeared to me as an embellished form of Matthew 28:19-20 (which says baptizing and teaching all nations) and Acts 1:8 (which points out Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth). Is "all creation" supposed to parallel the usage of "world" in John 3:16 that means all people? Verified passages don't use it. And I'm not going to tell my cat that Jesus died for her (He didn't).
Belief as necessary for salvation, and those not believing standing condemned is in John 3:16-17. I'm not sure about the "belief and baptism" thing. I think there is some denomination or something that argues people have to both believe and be submersed in water to go to Heaven, but this is easily answerable with the fact that baptism is a work, a physical act. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is in the Bible, though. (I know I said that the Gospel is a core belief uniting all denominations. They might say that if one is saved they will get baptized, and it is a work that shows verification. I don't know. But if I did, I might have to go so far as to say this one denomination isn't actually Christian. Although I would be very open to them being willing to believe, and God recognizing that, but they just need to be shown, and wrestle with, the proof that it is by faith alone.)
Something else that troubles me is drinking deadly poison and messing with deadly snakes, and not being hurt. Ehrman named the "Appalachian Snake-Handlers," a denomination which Strobel probably referred to when including the story of a woman dying in Kentucky because purportedly Mark said handling a rattlesnake wouldn't hurt a believer(1). What we do know is that in Acts the Disciples spoke in tongues and healed the sick, and Paul healed the sick and cast out one demon or more. This makes me think that someone could argue these verses (which aren't actual Bible verses) only go for His early church. If they handled deadly snakes or drank deadly poison and God kept them from harm, it's not verified and I don't think has ever been a big deal at all. In Acts 28:5-6 Paul survived a deadly snake bite. I can't think of any instance with anyone and poison.
The last two verses are of course paralleled in Acts, which starts when Jesus was taken up into Heaven and then His Disciples were blessed with His miraculous power. Being seated at God's right hand is paralleled somewhere I don't know.
Ehrman reminded me of the notable piece of evidence that the woman is caught alone, and not her accomplice. What did they do, peel her off of a man they liked? Relatively recently it was brought to my attention that the problem with the Jewish leaders was not keeping the law -- they knew and kept the law! Their personalities just were very self-righteous, and it was on the power of the law they thrived. But someone might argue being caught "in" adultery shouldn't be taken so literally, and just allow for a man who ran away to not be punished but a woman who wasn't independent enough to do the same. Whatever.
Ehrman says, "In fact, scholars who work on this manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case." (5) He specifically says a lot of phrases and words otherwise not found in John.
Honestly, I bet there is a huge consensus among Christian scholars (and unbelieving scholars), and very possibly a literal consensus among everyone. Wallace did suggest Bible translators should say they don't think it's original, not some should if they agree and others not. Some scholars think it's a true story, or at least partially true, but it's still not a part of the word of God.
I am fervently reminded of what I thought a long time ago: the only reason scholars like Ehrman can say these aren't original is because we have so much evidence in the first place. But now I must acknowledge that "so much evidence" isn't limited to just having early manuscripts, which is what I was thinking about the first time I came up with this. We not only have those, we also have the manuscripts that have the adulterous woman story in other places, commentary from early Greek authors and church fathers, scribes who would note the adulterous woman story was doubtful instead of forging all the time, and the original words of what actually was in John and Mark to see what doesn't fit.
1. Lee Strobel, In Defense of Jesus: Investigating Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2007), 97. He cites Shawntaye Hopkins, "Woman Bitten by Snake at Church Dies," Lexington Herald-Leader (Nov. 8, 2006).
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.