Post by unkleE on May 31, 2014 4:15:33 GMT
Bart Ehrman has a new book out - How Jesus Became God - and it continues what seems to me to be a worrying pattern.
I have one book by Ehrman, and have read other articles and excerpts by him, including his blog (occasionally). I respect him as a scholar and I get the impression that I would like him as a person - his style of writing seems to me to be genial and quite open and frank. But he is losing credibility with me a little, as some of his books seem to be academically questionable in some ways. Here's the examples that concern me.
Misquoting Jesus
The inside cover of this book says (my bolding) "In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today." In the conclusion of the book he says "how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes". It sounds like enormous and significant change.
Yet when you read the text of the book, the picture is very different. The most significant changes he mentions are these:
Some of the explanation (e.g. the inside cover blurb) may be blamed on Ehrman's editor, perhaps, but that doesn't seem sufficient explanation. But some of it seems to be deliberate by Ehrman. Just after the conclusion that the text has been "radically" altered, he also says this: "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us." These sentences are so close together that it is hard to see how they don't contradict.
My guess is that Ehrman is really addressing inerrantists and KJV-only christians. The back cover blurb mentions "corrupted and inferior manuscripts" used for the King James Bible, and I daresay that comment is fair. But most of us don't rely on the KJV any more, so his statements seem over the top. And many of the reviews at the time, admittedly from more evangelical christians, made the same criticisms - he much overstated the case.
Did Jesus Exist?
I don't have to review the furore that erupted in mythicist ranks when Ehrman produced this book a few years back. Richard Carrier was particularly vociferous. I didn't follow the ebb and flow of argument and counter argument, but I felt at the time that, although Carrier did his usual self-promotion, and argued fine detail with highly suspect arguments, he did actually push Ehrman to admit that some of his statements were inexact or badly worded. I don't think his central thesis was dented, but I thought his reputation as an accurate scholar was weakened a little.
How Jesus Became God
Larry Hurtado has recently reviewed this latest book by Ehrman. Now we must recognise that Hurtado is a believer (I presume) whereas Ehrman is not, so they are each bound to have some bias. But this topic is Hurtado's speciality while it is certainly not Ehrman's. Hurtado praises many aspects of the book, including a change in Ehrman's position to recognise that Jesus was worshipped as divine earlier than he used to think was the case.
But Hurtado also points out a number of areas where Ehrman's lack of knowledge in this area lead him to questionable statements and conclusions ("on several matters he seems to rely on now discredited views, or over-simplify or misunderstand things"). Of course such disagreement is common, but it raises the same worrying conclusion - does Ehrman do his research well enough and does he present the fairest conclusions based on the available information? Or does he slightly over-sensationalise his popular writings?
I'm not qualified to say. But I wonder if others here have any thoughts please?
I have one book by Ehrman, and have read other articles and excerpts by him, including his blog (occasionally). I respect him as a scholar and I get the impression that I would like him as a person - his style of writing seems to me to be genial and quite open and frank. But he is losing credibility with me a little, as some of his books seem to be academically questionable in some ways. Here's the examples that concern me.
Misquoting Jesus
The inside cover of this book says (my bolding) "In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today." In the conclusion of the book he says "how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes". It sounds like enormous and significant change.
Yet when you read the text of the book, the picture is very different. The most significant changes he mentions are these:
- Two complete passages (John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) which have long been recognised as not being in the original text, and in most translations are consigned to a footnote, or otherwise made clear that they are doubtful. Neither add anything significant to the NT picture of Jesus.
- About 2 dozen words have been added to each of Luke 22:43-44 and 1 John 5:7-8. The former adds little of significance while the latter appears to have been added to strengthen the NT case for the Trinity. Both are also footnoted as probably not genuine in most translations.
- Mark 1:41 and Luke 2:33 appear to have had slight changes to one word to better preserve orthodox christian doctrine. Nothing important hinges on these, and Maurice casey's explanation of the Mark passage (poor translation out of Aramaic into Greek) seems a better explanation than Ehrman's.
- Hebrews 2:9 & Romans 5:1 have a minor wording change that seems to have no significance.
- John 1:18 has varied wording (Jesus as son of God vs Jesus as God) which may have been theologically motivated.
Some of the explanation (e.g. the inside cover blurb) may be blamed on Ehrman's editor, perhaps, but that doesn't seem sufficient explanation. But some of it seems to be deliberate by Ehrman. Just after the conclusion that the text has been "radically" altered, he also says this: "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us." These sentences are so close together that it is hard to see how they don't contradict.
My guess is that Ehrman is really addressing inerrantists and KJV-only christians. The back cover blurb mentions "corrupted and inferior manuscripts" used for the King James Bible, and I daresay that comment is fair. But most of us don't rely on the KJV any more, so his statements seem over the top. And many of the reviews at the time, admittedly from more evangelical christians, made the same criticisms - he much overstated the case.
Did Jesus Exist?
I don't have to review the furore that erupted in mythicist ranks when Ehrman produced this book a few years back. Richard Carrier was particularly vociferous. I didn't follow the ebb and flow of argument and counter argument, but I felt at the time that, although Carrier did his usual self-promotion, and argued fine detail with highly suspect arguments, he did actually push Ehrman to admit that some of his statements were inexact or badly worded. I don't think his central thesis was dented, but I thought his reputation as an accurate scholar was weakened a little.
How Jesus Became God
Larry Hurtado has recently reviewed this latest book by Ehrman. Now we must recognise that Hurtado is a believer (I presume) whereas Ehrman is not, so they are each bound to have some bias. But this topic is Hurtado's speciality while it is certainly not Ehrman's. Hurtado praises many aspects of the book, including a change in Ehrman's position to recognise that Jesus was worshipped as divine earlier than he used to think was the case.
But Hurtado also points out a number of areas where Ehrman's lack of knowledge in this area lead him to questionable statements and conclusions ("on several matters he seems to rely on now discredited views, or over-simplify or misunderstand things"). Of course such disagreement is common, but it raises the same worrying conclusion - does Ehrman do his research well enough and does he present the fairest conclusions based on the available information? Or does he slightly over-sensationalise his popular writings?
I'm not qualified to say. But I wonder if others here have any thoughts please?