Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Book Review

"Misquoting Jesus" (Bart Ehrman). I remembered Ehrman's name from the "Judas Gospel" event a year or two ago. He said, "The reappearance of the Gospel of Judas will rank among the greatest finds from Christian antiquity." This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. But I wasn't going to hold it against him as I read this book.

The title of this book is an excellent example of how titles are chosen for books. Often authors actually have little say, and the title is often chosen to be controversial (and increase sales). In this case, Ehrman never argues that anyone is misquoting Jesus.

The book is actually a layman's introduction to textual criticism (the art and science behind determining the original words of the Bible). In telling this story, Ehrman does an excellent job (although I'm no expert on the history). He makes what could be a very dry topic, lively and interesting. He also verified that the ideas I've had on the subject were covered three hundred years ago.

Ehrman also presents a laundry list of "intentional changes" and the possible motivations behind them. The tone is rather scandalous, and some might be shocked and dismayed. Only problem is, my pocket Bible is called, "New Believer's Bible" New Living Translation Tyndale HousePublishers 1996. Ehrman's book was published in 2005. My Bible has a star next to nearly every verse Ehrman cites. So Christianity has survived at least 9 years of Bibles published with the changes Ehrman recommends!

There is a sadder story behind this book. On page 3 (in the introduction), Ehrman gives his "conversion story". It reads like most of the stories on web sites like "Debunking Christianity". It is clear Ehrman is part of the reaping we are now seeing in response to the sowing of a "puny-fied" Gospel message. Well meaning people talking about love, and a "God-shaped hole in your heart", and not talking about sin and judgment. Seeds sown into rocky ground (Matthew 13:20), at first putting up impressive growth, only to come crashing down. And they will not turn back easily: 2 Peter 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

Please pray for Mr. Ehrman.

34 comments:

GCT said...

Did you read the hardcover or the paperback edition?

In the paperback edition there is an interview with Ehrman where he clarifies. The faith that he lost was not his faith in Christianity, but his faith in Biblical innerancy and literality. He is not a Christian, but that is not due to textual criticism. He also says quite plainly that the textual criticisms that he makes aren't not show-stoppers for Christianity - thus making one of your complaints moot.

I'm wondering what your opinion of the conclusions are, however. He quite plainly says some things that you will probably find controversial, like that the Bible was certainly written by men, not god, and that it is a mistake to try and harmonize the gospels, because they were intentionally written as changes in the stories.

nedbrek said...

It was the hardcover.

Without Biblical inerrancy, your Christianity will fail. It may take hours, or generations (witness the "mainline" Protestant dominations). But that isn't really my point.

Ehrman has seen God's hand working directly. He has seen the original manuscripts. He has done the work to reassemble them. Yet, instead of praising God that the work is even possible, he doubts. And his sinful pride leads him to attack God.

If you compare our stockpile of ancient Biblical manuscripts to any other ancient text, you'd be amazed. So many personalities from history stand on a few fragments. Compared with thousands.

My point is that Ehrman is missing is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Personally, and in history. We trust that we have enough manuscripts. We trust that we have the right manuscripts, and that they are enough. The Spirit in us helps us to read and interpret them. And that's what Ehrman lacks.

GCT said...

Without Biblical inerrancy your Christianty will fail? Huh? Why does the Bible need to be inerrant? Why can't it be written by a bunch of men but actually describe a real god? I don't personally think it does, but there's no logical necessity for the Bible to not contain errors. Oh, and Ehrman says that he lost his Christianity due to the problem of evil, not anything to do with the scriptures themselves.

Moreover, he makes a point to say that he has not seen the original manuscripts, no one has. We can not re-create the original Bible, because we don't have the original manuscripts. He has done work to reassemble them, and found that they were the work of humans. Certainly, you can't deny the intent of Luke to deify Jesus from the earlier story of Mark.

As to the amount of texts, doesn't Ehrman deal with that? (I may be wrong, or it may be in the paperback.)

Lastly, Ehrman certainly had the holy spirit when he was a devout fundamentalist. Further, why do you have to trust that you have enough manuscripts? Why don't you know? What if they aren't the right manuscripts? How can you deny the obvious signs of human hands and intentions on those manuscripts? That Ehrman approaches his work with a scholarly mein is not something to scoff at.

nedbrek said...

(Sorry, I should of said "oldest" instead of "original" manuscripts).

If you doubt God keeps His Word, you are sinning (blaspheming God by calling Him a liar). If you are continuously sinning, you do not have the Spirit (applications of 1 John 1:6, and 2:4).

Without the Spirit, you're interpretation of the Bible is liable to go off the rails at any moment. You will be continually asking, "Could that be what God really meant?" "Maybe this passage doesn't belong?"

Before long, you are denying the God of the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus (Marcionism). Or denying that Jesus was really God (Arianism). Or denying that homosexual acts are a sin. Or thinking we are all little gods (Mormonism, "word-faith").

The danger of heresy is all around. That's why the path is narrow! (Matthew 7:14).

Actually a good point, the wide path mentioned by Jesus is not atheism or paganism.

It is false Christianity.

A wide (easy, accepting) road, which seems to lead to God, but does not.

(I'll address your other points later)

GCT said...

I doubt that god keeps his word, if he does exist. The Bible is proof.

And, why can't I interpret the scripture? Aren't the scriptures about universal, absolute morals? Why would I need the secret decoder ring to understand absolute morality?

Homosexuality is not a sin.

nedbrek said...

Kind of an aside...

Do you believe in absolute truth? In that there could be a correct and an incorrect interpretation of Scripture?

GCT said...

I believe that there is "absolute truth" in the sense that we can come to objective truths, like the laws of math and physics. In regards to scripture, I also think there is a correct interpretation, and that would be what the author intended to convey. I don't think we (thousands of years later) can ever know for sure what the original authors intended for sure, however. We can make good inferences though, and I think Ehrman makes some pretty good ones, especially in regards to Luke's gospel.

nedbrek said...

"Aren't the scriptures about universal, absolute morals?"

The Bible is God's revelation of Himself. So, you can't just mine them for whatever you want to prove (which, unfortunately, a lot of people do...).

Part of God's will is what offends Him, or what standard He uses for judgment (and the Bible tells us there will be a judgment).

As Hitchens says, people knew lying, adultery, etc. were wrong before the Ten Commandments. But the law (and the specific punishments, and sacrifices) was given for the structure of the nation of Israel.

The Bible also tells us that God reveals Himself progressively (in ever increasing amounts). The Jews dealt with God through an intermediary (the high priest). Now we deal directly with God, Jesus, our High Priest. But as "through a glass, darkly". When He comes again, we will see Him face to face.

That was kind of long, but the purpose of Scripture (rightly divided) is to know God. Any part of the Scripture can lead you to faith (Romans 10:17). But other than that, if you deny God, what purpose is there in trying to discover His will?

GCT said...

So, are you asserting that the Bible does not give us our morals?

nedbrek said...

We have morals regardless of our understanding of the Bible. It is part of being in the image of God (morality, conscience, a sense for justice - things animals do not have).

Some people think our morality comes from the Bible. These people are not thinking things all the way through.

Every human population agrees that murder, stealing, adultery, etc. are wrong. Even those which have had no exposure to the Bible.

Of course people still do these things. Which speaks volumes against those who say our conscience comes from evolution...

GCT said...

Well, it's refreshing to have a Christian not claim that morality comes from the Bible. But, this raises some other problems, no? I'll get to that in a second.

Are you aware of the studies of evolutionary morality? Other animals show altruistic behavior all the time. This is strong evidence that we did receive our morality, at least in part, from our evolutionary heritage.

So (now from above) if man is made in god's image and that's where morality comes from, then where do animals get their altruistic instincts from? Certainly, it isn't full blown moral codes like what we have, but it is a proto-form none-the-less.

Finally, why does the Bible condone, or openly tell us to commit acts that are immoral?

nedbrek said...

(I am going to sideline any evolution talk, for now, I will probably do a full post on it at sometime...)

"why does the Bible condone, or openly tell us to commit acts that are immoral?"

You've gone back and forth on this with David W. at the He Lives blog. I agree with David that the apparent genocides in the Old Testament are not true genocides. They are the judgment of God.

David was still working through some of the issues of slavery. Let me add that divorce was allowed under Mosaic law, due to the hardness of the people's hearts. Slavery was quite likely the same.

New Testament passages on slavery are much more restrictive than the Mosaic law, and would be binding on us today (if we allowed slavery).

nedbrek said...

(Going back to an older point.)

Do you think there is a "problem of evil"? What does it involve for you?

GCT said...

If the genocides are the "judgement of god" then god shows himself to be unjust. You believe that god must choose people before they can come to him, so the Amalekites were simply unchosen and slaughtered for it so that they could more quickly go to the eternal torture of hell. Nice. Perhaps god likes to torture others and he wanted some more souls as quickly as possible?

Are you really going to compare slavery to divorce? And, I don't really care what the NT says on slavery unless it says, "Don't take slaves, it is immoral." The practice is immoral, end of story. That god seems to accept it is a mark against him.

"Do you think there is a "problem of evil"? What does it involve for you?"

I do and I don't. If god is benevolent as Christians assert, then there is most definitely a problem of evil. If god is as the Bible asserts, then evil is what I would expect from god. That probably doesn't answer your question though, does it?

nedbrek said...

We have free will, and are responsible for our actions. God chooses those who are willing to serve Him. God doesn't just flip coins and say, "You. Not you, not you. You."

Slavery is immoral, if you believe the purpose of life is to live your life as you please (i.e. to have freedom in all things).

According to the Bible, our purpose in life is to glorify God and to do work. Being a slave impairs neither of these purposes.

Divorce may lead to adultery (through remarriage). Adultery is offensive to God.

But remember that Christians played a big role in the abolition of slavery. The people quoting the Bible to support slavery were hypocrites. They were not living up to their requirements.

I'm glad slavery is gone. And I don't want to see it back.

GCT said...

How is it possible to have free will in a universe formed by an omniscient and omnipotent god?

Slavery is immoral because people are not property. If god treats us as such, then god is immoral. If our purpose is to glorify god (I thought it was to love god?) then god is not interested in our love, only what he can get from us.

I find your stance on divorce disappointing. Two people may not be well suited for each other and may not find happiness. It seems that god would rather they be unhappy for their whole lives than split up and seek happiness elsewhere with another. If this is the case, then god truly does not love us, especially since Jesus pretty specifically states that divorce should only be allowed in the case of the woman being unfaithful (being beaten by her husband apparently is no excuse.)

"But remember that Christians played a big role in the abolition of slavery. The people quoting the Bible to support slavery were hypocrites. They were not living up to their requirements."

This is non-sensical. The Bible explicitly accepts slavery as a moral practice. Those who quoted the Bible in defense of slavery were more correct. At best, you can argue that the Bible can be used to argue either position (which does fit with your position that the Bible is not the source of our morals.) It does not, however, make the slavers into hypocrits.

nedbrek said...

Free will is possible because God keeps His Word. When He gave dominion of the earth to us, He respects that. If we want to do evil, that is our prerogative.

Loving God is part of giving Him glory. If a person was doing something "to glorify himself", we would be [shocked | horrified | saddened]. But for God, it is natural (part of His nature). God is not like us. We are somewhat like Him.

God is interested in what He can get from us. Jesus many times used the metaphor of God as a farmer. The Farmer expects things from His crops. And the crops that fail are thrown in the fire. No spite, or pleasure in torment.

Your happiness shouldn't come from your wife. See 1 Corinthians 7:10-17.

If your spouse is consistently abusing you, you should leave (application of 1 Corinthians 7:15). This is actually the most loving thing to do. This topic is covered very well in "Love must be tough" by James Dobson.

Slave masters are governed by Colossians 4:1 and Ephesians 6:9. I'm unaware of any large plantations operating in that manner.

But it does provide a good metaphor. We can be slaves to Christ, or slaves to sin. There is no middle ground.

GCT said...

"Free will is possible because God keeps His Word."

How do you know that god keeps his word? Because he said so? Either way, it's not possible. It's illogical. Here's a little thought exercise that I got from Steve S. god has the power to write a book that details every single action that you are going to take for the rest of your life, correct? If that is so, what if god gave that book to you. If you read it, would you be able to exercise your free will and do something that is not written in that book?

"Loving God is part of giving Him glory. If a person was doing something "to glorify himself", we would be [shocked | horrified | saddened]. But for God, it is natural (part of His nature). God is not like us. We are somewhat like Him."

This is contradictory. If we are like god, then god is also like us. If we are horrified that a person does something to glorify himself, then we should be just as horrified at god doing it. This is like when you know someone who says nasty things to other people and you simply shrug it off and say, "Oh, he's just like that." I'm sure you've heard people say that before, right? Well, do you think it's a good excuse for someone to be a jerk? Of course not, but you are using that very excuse for god.

"God is interested in what He can get from us."

That's rather self-serving.

"Your happiness shouldn't come from your wife."

No, not exclusively, but having a good home life is certainly part of being happy in general.

"If your spouse is consistently abusing you, you should leave (application of 1 Corinthians 7:15). This is actually the most loving thing to do."

But not divorce. Just leave and be a hermit for the rest of your life with no loving/sexual contact. No thank you, and if god truly cared about us he would not ask us to do that.

"Slave masters are governed by Colossians 4:1 and Ephesians 6:9. I'm unaware of any large plantations operating in that manner."

And you show quotes that show that the Bible is NOT opposed to slavery to support the anti-slavery movement? Oh, and the Bible also says that you can beat your slaves, so that seems to be a contradiction.

"But it does provide a good metaphor. We can be slaves to Christ, or slaves to sin. There is no middle ground."

How monstrous of god to set up a binary system where humans are enslaved no matter what. How can you honestly say that god is good and just?

nedbrek said...

God has written a book that tells us what is going to happen. Why do you think there were so many messiahs around the time of Jesus? The book of Daniel gives a calculation for when "the messiah shall be cut off". It gives a date right around 30 AD.

The Revelation to John is a book which has not yet been fulfilled (sorry preterists). But note how confusing the language is. God wouldn't be able to give me a book that said, "On Saturday, July 28 2007, Ned went to Barnes and Nobles and bought a Star Wars novel". Because I'm not going. I don't really like Star Wars novels that much (unless they're written by Timothy Zahn). See Revelation 10:4, where John is told not to write something. Probably because it would aversely affect the outcome of some people during that time.

We are finite sinners, God is infinite and good (despite what you say). It is right for Him to glorify Himself and to demonstrate His mercy and justice.

On God being self-serving, isn't it right for the creator to have expectations of His creation? See Romans 9:20.

GCT said...

"The book of Daniel gives a calculation for when "the messiah shall be cut off". It gives a date right around 30 AD."

Huh, that's funny because Jesus also says that he'll be back within a generation. People are still waiting.

"God wouldn't be able to give me a book that said, "On Saturday, July 28 2007, Ned went to Barnes and Nobles and bought a Star Wars novel". Because I'm not going."

This does not answer the question.

"We are finite sinners, God is infinite and good (despite what you say)."

If we are finite sinners, then infinite punishment is infinitely unjust. If god is torturing us unjustly, then god is not good.

"It is right for Him to glorify Himself and to demonstrate His mercy and justice."

What would you say about a person that only seeks to glorify himself?

"On God being self-serving, isn't it right for the creator to have expectations of His creation?"

If the creation doesn't come out to the standards of the creator, is it the fault of the creator or the created? For example, if I create a sculpture, then I'm dissatisfied with it because it does not live up to my artistic expectations, is it the sculpture's fault?

nedbrek said...

What are you arguing in favor of? A world without God, where everything everywhere will be dead in a few billion years? What do you have to gain?

GCT said...

Wouldn't it be better than a world with gods where we all blow each other up over who has the better imaginary friend?

I'd like for us to see through all the hateful rhetoric and see that we are all just people. There's no need to kill that man because he's Jewish or Amish or Hindi or Islamic or whatever. There's no need to curtail people's freedoms that don't negatively affect others. There's no need to push ancient superstitions on those around us and guide our lives by their barbaric and outdated mores.

nedbrek said...

I'm not arguing in favor of blowing up or killing anyone. The Biblical view is clearly, love your enemy. If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. If someone takes your shirt, give them your coat.

Can you get behind that?

How familiar are you with the homosexual lifestyle?

Is there another "freedom" you're concerned with?

GCT said...

"I'm not arguing in favor of blowing up or killing anyone. The Biblical view is clearly, love your enemy. If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. If someone takes your shirt, give them your coat."

No. If your neighbor strikes you then turn the other cheek, with neighbor being narrowly defined as fellow Christian and turning the other cheek meaning not seeking direct vengeance. The Bible, however, does say things about taking violence to unbelievers, attacking first, beating slaves and women, killing people for crimes, etc. It's a rather barbaric book.

"Can you get behind that?"

I can certainly get behind peaceful coexistence with others. I'm a big proponent of it actually.

"How familiar are you with the homosexual lifestyle?"

What do you mean by "lifestyle"? Are you asking if I'm gay? Would it matter if I was?

"Is there another "freedom" you're concerned with?"

You mean other than homosexuality? Sure, lots. How about sexual freedom in general? How about the freedom to pledge allegiance to my country and not to some deity? How about the freedom so spend money in my own country without peddling for god? How about the freedom to pay taxes that don't go to support ancient superstitions and irrational world views? How about the freedom to not be fired from my job for not believing in god? How about the freedom to be able to raise my kids (if I had any) without potentially having them taken away due to my disbelief? There are tons of freedoms that believers take for granted that non-believers don't or can't. I'm not going to say that it's as bad as women or blacks or homosexuals face(d), but it's a civil rights issue for sure.

nedbrek said...

The first century Jews believed that about neighbors. Jesus clarified that everyone is your neighbor. And turn the other cheek, means turn the other cheek (1 Peter 3:14).

All the stories about killing unbelievers and taking slaves are in the OT. The NT is new and better. That's how God's progressive revelation works.

I don't care particularly if you are gay. I am asking if you are aware of the higher incidence of abuse and death that occurs in the actively homosexual community. Higher incidences of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.

This is where theology is important. If you believe that you should act out the "way you are made", things can go pretty badly. Christianity teaches that we are (currently) made in a broken fashion, and we need to turn from that to a better way.

Take the marriage relationship. God made male and female to be together. The husband is meant to be the head, with the wife submitting to the husband's leadership. The husband is meant to submit to Christ, and serve the wife and family (even to death of self).

So what happens when you have a homosexual couple? Who is submissive? Is there no leader? How are disagreements settled? One partner is going to be bent in an unnatural way. This is going to lead to domination or repression (or both). The expected result would be increased abuse and violence. Which is what we have (unfortunately) learned through experimentation.

GCT said...

"The first century Jews believed that about neighbors. Jesus clarified that everyone is your neighbor. And turn the other cheek, means turn the other cheek (1 Peter 3:14)."

That's only how we see it in a modern context. Of course, no one actually follows that, nor are we really required to in order to be Christian.

"All the stories about killing unbelievers and taking slaves are in the OT. The NT is new and better. That's how God's progressive revelation works."

And Jesus stressed that all the old laws must be followed. Plus, Jesus tells some pretty nice tales about killing unbelievers.

"I don't care particularly if you are gay. I am asking if you are aware of the higher incidence of abuse and death that occurs in the actively homosexual community. Higher incidences of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases."

Which, if true, can be explained by many different factors, such as being told that being gay is bad or evil from a very early age. Moving from partner to partner is often a sign of low self-esteem, and are we surprised when they have low self-esteem after we teach them from an early age that they are deviants?

"This is where theology is important. If you believe that you should act out the "way you are made", things can go pretty badly. Christianity teaches that we are (currently) made in a broken fashion, and we need to turn from that to a better way."

And, those teachings are hateful and lead to the problems that you pointed out above. Great job.

"Take the marriage relationship. God made male and female to be together. The husband is meant to be the head, with the wife submitting to the husband's leadership. The husband is meant to submit to Christ, and serve the wife and family (even to death of self)."

No offense, but this aint the 50s anymore. If god made men and women to be together, then why did he make gays at all?

"So what happens when you have a homosexual couple? Who is submissive? Is there no leader? How are disagreements settled?"

Hmmm, I don't know. Maybe they both act as adults? Why does one person have to dominate another? Why can not men and women be equals, as well as gay partners?

"This is going to lead to domination or repression (or both). The expected result would be increased abuse and violence. Which is what we have (unfortunately) learned through experimentation."

You do realize that some of the increased violence comes from gay bashers, right?

nedbrek said...

"why did he make gays at all?"

Romans 1:26-28

"Maybe they both act as adults? Why does one person have to dominate another? Why can not men and women be equals"

The man is not to dominate the woman. The man is the "head". That means he is responsible for the family, and the final arbiter of decisions. He is also "servant".

How can you have a democracy with two people? Someone has to be the final arbiter.

GCT said...

"Romans 1:26-28"

So god created gays because humans didn't appreciate him enough? Of course, this is really about Adam and Eve, right? Because of their original sin, we are born into depravity so that we are unable to come to god without him. So, he made gays because people would not come to him without god's help even though they were incapable of doing so?

"The man is not to dominate the woman. The man is the "head". That means he is responsible for the family, and the final arbiter of decisions. He is also "servant"."

You do know that you contradict yourself in the span of the first couple sentences there, right? Who is man serving? Woman? After telling her what to do he is her servant?

"How can you have a democracy with two people? Someone has to be the final arbiter."

It's called being an adult. People in relationships do it all the time.

nedbrek said...

Can't two adults have different opinions on what to do? How do you decide in this case? Something important, where you can only do one thing...

GCT said...

Of course two people can have different wants, and there are many ways to deal with it short of:

Man: "Woman do as I say."
Woman: "Yes oh master and head of household."

For one, the two people can sit down and discuss the pros and cons of each position, they can negotiate a give and take, or they can both come to an agreement on something that fulfills both their desires. Like I said, adults in relationships do this all the time. Of course, sometimes when irreconcilable differences happen, the adults terminate their relationship. It's all part of being a social animal.

nedbrek said...

"sometimes when irreconcilable differences happen, the adults terminate their relationship."

That's where God disagrees with you. He hates divorce. I'm going to trust that He knows better than you...

GCT said...

"That's where God disagrees with you. He hates divorce. I'm going to trust that He knows better than you... "

That's just plain foolish. Not only was I not speaking specifically about divorce, but even in the specific case god is just plain foolish.

Let's say that your sibling is in a marriage where his/her spouse beats him/her every day. Would it be loving for you to tell him/her to stick it out because god hates divorce? Is it loving for god to allow this to happen/decree that divorce is wrong so your sibling should continue to be beaten/take an absolutist stance that divorce is wrong no matter what? This example alone shows that god is either silly, uncaring, mean, evil, or some combination of those.

nedbrek said...

I thought we had been over this, physical abuse is a Biblical ground for divorce.

You said a disagreement could lead to a "termination of the relationship". That is a much lower bar...

GCT said...

Actually, what I said was, "Of course, sometimes when irreconcilable differences happen, the adults terminate their relationship."

I would think that is different from a simple disagreement.

And, you are wrong about physical abuse. Jesus only wanted to allow divorce if the woman was unfaithful. (Or maybe that was Paul, and Jesus wasn't much better.)