I’m a big fan of Bart Ehrman’s, so I was pleasantly surprised when you (collectively) chose Misquoting Jesus
How many of you were aware that:
- We don’t really know who the authors of the gospels are–they were written and circulated anonymously, and the names were added decades later.
- Matthew and Luke incorporated most of Mark (much of it verbatim–i.e., they weren’t just covering the same events, but copying). This is referred to as the “synoptic problem.” Besides including material from sources unique to themselves, they cleaned up much of Mark’s grammar, narration, and portrayal of Jesus and the apostles.
- Discoveries of older manuscripts have forced corrections (and challenged some doctrines) in Biblical translations that have been used by Christians for centuries. For example, the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark end not with appearance and subsequent ascension of the resurrected Jesus, but with the women seeing the empty tomb, hearing the witness of the angels, and then leaving in fear: “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were sore afraid.”
For the most part, these conclusions weren’t reached by skeptics but by devout scholars asking honest, searching questions. I admire their courage and devotion to the truth, and find their research fascinating partly because it is tangled up with deeply personal, sacred quests. The stakes are high. Ehrman’s journey is by no means singular.
If you’re interested, I’d love to write more about the historical-critical study of New Testament. I’ll gauge the level of interest by response (i.e. comments) to this post.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Tanya Sue // Jan 2, 2007 at 3:03 am
I would love to hear more. I would love to hear about to hear about the Old Testament as well (if that is of interest to you as well).
Tanya Sue
2 Jeff // Jan 2, 2007 at 11:46 am
While I’ve been reading this blog for awhile now, I believe this is my first comment. Might I just say that I love what you are doing here, and this is one of the few blogs that I read regularly.
That being said, I bought Ehrman’s book right before Christmas in hopes to discuss it here, and I’ve found it fascinating. I’m looking forward to finishing it and discussing it online.
As for a Bible Study here, I’d love to here more and discuss it. I’m kind of new to this type of study, and I’m fascinated by it. I read Elaine Pagels’ book The Gnostic Gospels a couple of years ago, and that kind of started my study. Please post more on the subject (some book suggestions would be nice as well
).
Thanks for all that you do. As a rather skeptical Mormon, I’ve appreciated reading your insights on your spiritual journey out of Mormonism.
Cheers,
Jeff
3 Chris // Jan 2, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Yes John, write on.
4 Elise // Jan 2, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’d love to have more discussion here about the New Testament. I’m still trying to figure out what role it plays in my own spirituality - I identify with Christianity as a general rule but don’t like the usually-Evangelical claim of “we know the Bible to be infallible.” It would be great to have a forum to learn more about the New Testament from an academic standpoint.
I just got “Misquoting Jesus” in the mail today and I’m looking forward to starting it this week!
5 Miko // Jan 2, 2007 at 9:50 pm
yes, no, and yes.
I’ve had my fill of Bible Studies, but an MoF bible study might be okay…
I think that, if we do a Bible Study we might do well to include other texts. All the BSes (and I don’t really mean that the way it looks, just too lazy to type it out each time…but apparently not too lazy to write this parenthetical comment) I’ve been involved with were very dogmatic: this quote proves this tenat, hallelujah, god be praised! I would be interested in a BS that would compare the canonical gospels to the noncanonical works that ended up being shunned after Nicea (I would actually include the Book of Mormon in this although it was not technically heretical until it was written ;)). I’d also be interested in a BS that compares the canonical books of different religions. (One of my sisters is trying to get her bf to get rid of a Protestant bible in favor of a Catholic bible, so I’d be interested in finding out what the difference is….)
6 Jonathan // Jan 3, 2007 at 8:41 am
I’m always interested in this stuff! Post away!
Biblical textual criticism has lately been extremely interesting to me - it’s quite an amazing field of study. I think Misquoting Jesus is along the same lines, so I am excited to read it. I’m presently halfway through reading another serious book on the same subject - The Journey from Texts to Translations - The Origins and Development of the Bible. which goes into great depth on which copy variants get used out of 5000+ copies of the New Testament found lying around that eventually make it into a modern Bible translation. He goes through the complex rating system that takes into account many different selection rules that differ greatly between the Old & New Testaments. I think this author takes the stand that the original author’s writing was infallible, but not the subsequent copies, which is where I lean myself. It goes into depth why the apocryphal books (the ones that never made it into the Canon, Catholic or Protestant) didn’t make it, including ones that have come under attention recently, like the Gospel of Thomas, which was spoken of in the Divinci Code and was probably Mohammad’s source of understanding Christianity.
I’ve been also reading a fascinating book (at least for me) on the philosophy of Bible translations. It talks about one of the biggest debates in this area - gender accuracy. Conservative Christians have been upset over one of my favorite translations, the TNIV which strives for general accurate language as well as a much better translation overall. It’s been a joy to read for me, even though some of my Christian friends look at me like I’m slipping to the dark side…
So I’ll probably be tossing in the stuff I’m learning into the mix from time to time on this subject as well.
Miko - I feel for you… I don’t like dogmatic-centric bible studies. They aren’t supposed to be that way in my opinion. This is kind of frustrating to me right now. I live in an area where Christians seem to be into “Pharisee-ism” - they take traditionally held beliefs (cultural not biblical ones) that have no biblical basis and decide everyone should believe them and take every opportunity to announce this to people who don’t, especially in a bible study. One friend thinks going to church in your best clothes is required, another that playing instruments in church is sinning, another, drinking alcohol in any form is wrong. I don’t know where they get this stuff from, but most of the time these dogmatic beliefs are not biblical unless you bend scripture to back up what you want to believe - a classic interpretation blunder. The latest and most annoying one of these traditional beliefs they tell me is that my wife can never work and have a family at the same time, and that I should force her to quit. This is one we get reminded of weekly. Oh well… such is life. I just smile and thank them for caring about me.:)
The difference between the Catholic Bible (Jerusalem Bible?) and the Protestant versions is that the Catholic one has 10 or so additional books - some of which are especially interesting - that point to where the ideas of indulgences and purgatory come from. Much of it comes from the Latin Vulgate by Jerome, an excellent medieval scholar who lived in Bethlehem. More modern translations use older and more accurate copies, but the books that are in both are not very different. I have a copy myself that I look at from time to time.
Which books are “inspired” vs. which ones aren’t in the Catholic cannon has been a debate originating from Luther. He proposed removing a bunch that are still in Protestant one - Like James and Esther. I don’t care for Esther on historic grounds (no writing exists that backs this story up in any Assyrian histories which is odd - since it involved in imperial decree) personally, and it seems uninspired to me anyway, but that’s just me
Which books should be in or out of the canon is still a debate even among conservative Christian scholars today.
7 John // Jan 3, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Thank you all for responding–I’ll definitely start including some posts on Biblical scholarship (I”m going to think a bit more about how to go about it). Tanya and Jeff, welcome and thank you for emerging from lurkdom! Jonathan, I may rely on you to keep me honest, since you already have a pretty heavy background in this.
8 Matt Bowman // Jan 3, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I’ve been meaning to read a bit of Ehrman for eight months now and haven’t yet. I welcome the chance to experience him vicariously.
9 Janell the Great // Jan 4, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Just wandering in through MFH.
I would love to see more information like this, providing you cite sources
10 John // Jan 4, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Welcome, Janell the Great and Matt Bowman! I promise to provide links and citations galore!
Leave a Comment