withallyourmind.net

This is the seventh post in a critical review of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Ehrman’s next major contention, and perhaps the most interesting, is that the scribes not only made mistakes, but…

… that sometimes the texts of the New Testament were modified for theological reasons.”

New Testament scholars have long noted that there are good reasons to suspect that this is true. The issue is not whether or not this happened, but it is whether or not Ehrman’s conclusions concerning this practice are justified. Kruger once again raises three points on this issue. First of all, Ehrman does not at all address the numerical significance of these supposed alterations. Intentional alterations make up an extremely small amount of any variations in the text. The author conveniently fails to discuss numbers when it does not support his thesis.

Additionally, and very importantly, Ehrman makes too much of the theological significance of the passages he deals with. One of the passages Ehrman discusses is Mark 1:41 and the question of whether Jesus was compassionate or angry in this case. As New Testament scholar, Dan Wallace, points out in his review, it hardly matters if Mark 1:41 claims Jesus was angry since Mark 3:5 clearly states that he was angry. Another deals with Matthew 24:36, in which “nor the son” is found in some texts but not in others. Again, Wallace illustrates that Mark 13:32, a parallel account, clearly contains “nor the son”, so there is no issue here. Another deals with I John 5:7-8, in which is found an explicit statement about the Trinity. For centuries, scholars have known this passage was a later addition to the text and almost no modern translation includes this passage. The doctrine of the Trinity is not argued from I John 5:7-8. It stands or falls based on the whole teaching of Scripture.

Ehrman’s belaboring the fact that John 7:53-8:11 and the last 12 verses of Mark are almost certainly not part of the original text is also overblown, as this has been acknowledged by New Testament scholars for a long time. While Ehrman’s illustrations may serve to frighten the average layperson, nothing that alters central Christian doctrines is produced in Misquoting Jesus.