Have you ever had that experience of a person telling you a story that didn’t make sense, but then someone else who was a part of the story was able to fill in the details which helped you understand what the first person was saying? This happened, and still happens with my kids. The younger they were the fewer important details were given and so my wife had to fill in what I need to know to understand what they were saying.
This idea of filling in the blanks is just one thing we’re going to cover as we jump back into our Fall Apologetics series. This year we’re looking at some of Barth Ehrman’s issues with how the orthodox Christian faith looks at the Bible as it’s rule to live by.
We started this series by establishing that Jesus is a historical person. The reason why this is important is because Jesus’ coming in flesh is central to the message of salvation. If Jesus wasn’t real then none of what we’re talking about matters. Christianity stands not only on the words of Jesus, but his historical actions.
Then last week we took some time and looked at some external evidence for why we can trust the New Testament. We started by looking at the dates of the New Testament writings and their corresponding earliest manuscript dates, comparing them to other historical figures and their earliest manuscript dates. We showed how the New Testament is one of the best, in time, set of established historical documents.
This brings us to now looking at the internal evidence as to why we can trust the New Testament. Now, remember last week, how I said we were going to get into the weeds, well here we go.
So what is Ehrman’s issue with the internal evidence of the New Testament? Ehrman writes in Jesus, Interrupted, “When students are first introduced to the historical, as opposed to the a devotional, study of the Bible, one of the first things they are forced to grapple with is that the biblical text, whether Old Testament or New Testament, is chock full of discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable. Some of these discrepancies are simple details where one book contradicts what another says about a minor point — the number of soldiers in an army, the year a certain king began his reign, the details of an apostle’s itinerary. In some cases seemingly trivial points of difference can actually have an enormous significance for the interpretation of a book or reconstruction of the history of ancient Israel or the life of the historical Jesus. And then there are instances that involve major issues, where one author has one point of view on an important topic, (How was the world created? Why do the people of God suffer? What is the significance of Jesus’ death?), and another author has another. Sometimes these views are simply different from one another, but at other times they are directly at odds.”
Ehrman’s issue is that he argues that there are discrepancies and outright contradictions within the New Testament text. So, as we saw last week, for Ehrman, it’s not really an issue from the manuscript history point of view where his problem with the New Testament really lies, it’s actually an internal issue.
Now, we don’t have time to tackle every one of the discrepancies or issues Ehrman presents in several of his books, but we’ll look at a few, which I believe show a pattern of why Ehrman is mistaken.
Let’s first talk about the manuscript discrepancies, because this issue bridges the gap between last week and this week. We know that what we have in the New Testament some of, if not the, closes manuscripts to the historical event in which it describes.
But the question arises, what about changes, additions, and subtractions from these manuscripts? Can we be sure that we have what was originally written?
Daniel B. Wallace is the executive director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. This center’s job is to photograph anything related to the New Testament manuscripts. It is through this center’s work that many unknown manuscripts have been found.
Wallace, in a 2013 article, stated that the then current estimate of manuscript errors was around 400,000. Today, that estimate is upwards of 450,000. Now that seems like a huge number. However, Wallace explains how scholars have come up with that number.
See, back in the 1960s a scholar by the name of Neil R. Lightfoot wrote a book entitled, How We Got the Bible. In that book, Lightfoot came up with an estimate of 200,000 manuscript errors.
The way Lightfoot came to this conclusion was by cataloging an error in a manuscript and then counting that same error in every other manuscript that had it. In other words, if the word “John” was spelled J-O-H-N in an old manuscript, any manuscript that spelled it “J-O-N” would be counted wrong. Another example is a phrase like, “Jesus loves Mary.” If that was in the oldest manuscripts, then if in later manuscripts it was phrased as, “Mary is a person Jesus loved,” then that would be considered an error.
Calculating this way, Wallace revamps Lightfoot’s original estimate to be more than 20 million errors. However, Wallace states that in actually, there are only about 6,577 root errors in the roughly 5,550 New testament documents. If we take those two numbers we get about 1.2 errors per manuscript. When put in the light of how many words are on average in a New Testament book, we get about .02 errors per New Testament book.
If you’ve read any of my books, then you know there’s more errors in those, than what we find in the manuscripts of the New Testament.
By Ehrman’s own admission he writes in an article entitled, “Aren’t there 400,000 Variants or Errors in the New Testament?,” “In this two-part response, we have covered four categories so far: ‘blunders’, ‘unviable readings’, ‘orthographic variations’, and ‘minor textual variants’. In these four categories, we have covered about 99% of the 400,000 variants. As a textual critic, these are the kinds of things that I try to convince my students are important. Needless to say, I have a hard time persuading them to pay attention to these four types of variants. My students will look at the field and the kind of textual variant, and consider them to be insignificant.”
The reason why his students consider these errors insignificant is because they are. None of these errors in the 99% change anything about the text theologically. Taking Wallace’s number of 6,577, there are only about 66 errors that are theologically pressing.
And most of these are actually brought up in your Bibles. An example of this is if you open up to the Gospel of Mark and go to chapter 16. When you get to verse 8, you’ll read something like this in most modern translations, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include: 16:9-20.” Most modern translations let you know when these discrepancies happen and most modern versions adjust for them, while still footnoting the difference. This happens when a verse which is in older translations is regulated to a footnote in newer translations.
The two big discrepancies that are still being debated in scholarly work are John 4, and Revelation 13:18. John 4 is the story of the woman at the well. It has a lot in common with Luke’s writing style, so scholars debate if it wasn’t originally connected to Luke’s Gospel. However, as we saw last week, John and Luke could have been writing at the same time. Luke might have even interviewed John. So Luke might have written the story down, and John simply used Luke’s rendition of it. But the story is consistent in how John presents Jesus, and fits perfectly in his Gospel, so there’s no issue.
The other discrepancy is Revelation 13:18, where the mark of the beast is most known at 666, but there are a few old manuscripts that have it as 616. Does that impact theology? A little bit, is it enough to change the course of the Christian faith? Not even close. That’s why these issues, even the theological ones, are insignificant.
Now that we have the errors and discrepancies of the New Testament manuscripts understood, we can turn to what is Ehrman’s real problem. Ehrman concedes that we have what the original writers intended, but is what is there actually from God? Ehrman doesn’t think so, because he believes the Bible is riddled with discrepancies and contradictions. Let’s take a couple of his examples and see if he’s correct.
For our two examples, we’re going to look at the birth and death of Jesus. First his birth. Ehrman writes of Jesus’ birth narrative, “The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew.”
Here’s Ehrman’s problem with the text: The narratives are not identical, for Ehrman, this means that there is a discrepancy and therefore they cannot be truthful. But here’s one of Ehrman’s catch 22 moments. If the narratives were identical, then the argument would be that the writers colluded. This is actually an issue scholars like Ehrman bring up when talking about the Synoptic Gospels. The fact that they’re different lends credibility to there being more to the story than one story teller could tell.
Let’s compare Matthew and Luke’s account and see if we can understand what Ehrman cannot.
Matthew begins with Joseph’s genealogy, we then get an announcement of the birth to Jospeh, the adopted father. Then we are told that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, and within an estimated two year span, wise men from the east show up. Jospeh receives a dream to escape because Herod is sending soldiers to kill babies. After Herod’s death, Jesus’ family moves to Nazareth.
The focus of Matthew’s opening is very Jewish in that the focus is on legacy, connecting Jesus to David and Abraham. Matthew also emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, both in where he is born, and who comes to pay homage or worship to him. We’re told that the current king Herod tries to kill him, because Jesus is the true king of the Jews. Matthew focuses on certain elements from Jesus’ brith that will heighten other events later in his life.
Now Luke. This Gospel begins with John the Baptist’s brith announcement. Luke connects Jesus to the Servant of Isaiah and so shows how this connection begins even before Jesus is announced. In this way Luke is showing how God is preparing the way for the Messiah. Then we get Jesus’ announcement, but this time it’s to Mary. Whereas we follow Jospeh’s story in Matthew, Luke is having us follow Mary’s. Mary then visits Elizabeth and sings her song. Eventually we’re given another genealogy, this time, most likely through Mary. Following this, John and then Jesus are born. For Jesus, Angels announce his arrival that very night to shepherds. Luke focuses in on where Jesus has come from and to whom, the least of these, Jesus has come to. Jesus then fulfills Old Testament practices and returns to Nazareth.
Matthew and Luke present, not conflicting stories but pieces of the whole. Matthew moves us through the birth narrative pretty quickly to focus on Jesus’ kingship. Luke on the other hand focuses in on the moments leading up to, and including, Jesus actual birth. If we had one, we would have enough to understand where Jesus came from and why he has come. However, with both read together, we have a greater picture of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. How many times have people said, too bad we didn’t know more of Jesus’ life? Well the reality is, we have a lot more than most.
So there’s no contradictory elements in the two birth narratives, but instead, both give us a fuller picture of the first two years of Jesus’ life.
Now let’s look at the death narrative, or what is usually referred to as Jesus’ Passion. Looking at the Passion narratives in Mark and Luke, Ehrman writes, “It is hard to stress strongly enough the differences between these two portrayals.” Ehrman has three key points of difference in these Passion narratives. First, Jesus is quiet throughout Mark’s passion narrative, whereas in Luke he speaks. Second, in Mark, Jesus is suffering and in Luke he’s triumphant. Third, Ehrman questions, when was the curtain torn?
Looking at the first point, we can see that Jesus does speak more in Luke than he does in Mark. In Mark Jesus speaks two times, once to Pilate (v.15:2), and once on the cross (v.34). In Luke, Jesus speaks five times: once to Pilate (v.23:3), once to some women in the crowd on his way to the cross (v.31), and three times on the cross, saying “Forgive them…(v.34)” “…with me in paradise (v.43),” and “Father into your hands …(v.46)
Now Mark does include that Jesus made a loud cry, but doesn’t give any words. This loud cry, as Luke tells it, would be connected to Jesus’ words, “Father, into your hands…” However, Mark doesn’t say that Jesus was completely silent. In keeping with tradition, Mark is writing from Peter’s witness. Because of this there are two interpretations as to why we get a difference of how many times Jesus speaks. First, Peter at this point isn’t very close to the cross, so he might not have heard everything Jesus spoke. So when preaching, Peter shares his testimony of what Jesus said, though he might know of more. Secondly, Peter is preaching these events and not covering every detail. Sermons are not meant to be detailed written account, but rather heard. That means you focus in on what you believe matters fro your current audience.
Either way, what is important is, and something Ehrman doesn’t address, is the fact that what is said isn’t contradictory. In fact, where Mark and Luke share the same words of Jesus, their the exact same. To Pilate Jesus states, “You have said so.” So like the brith narrative, we do not have contradictory elements, but rather a fuller picture.
But what about Jesus’s portray. Ehrman claims the in Mark, Jesus is portrayed as merely suffering, but in Luke he is triumphant in suffering. The reason Ehrman makes this claim is because of what Jesus says in Mark 15:34, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Like many people in the crowd at the cross, Ehrman interprets this as Jesus crying out to God as if God has forsaken him. Now as Ehrman briefly notes, these words open Psalm 22. However, Ehrman doesn’t go into detail about why Jesus might have quoted Psalm 22.
See Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. If you read it, you’re going to read something very interesting, it’s a Psalm that poetically describes crucifixion. It’s almost as if Jesus isn’t crying out in agony because God has abandoned him, but rather, pointing his disciples a final time to the Scriptures being fulfilled. In other words, this a triumphant moment, in the middle of Jesus’ pain he is revealing that the scorn of the cross was meant by God to bring about salvation. Instead of ending in agony, Jesus is ending in victory, showing that what he was going through was prophesied hundreds of years before. Again, no contradiction, but a fuller understanding of the events of the cross.
Finally, what about the curtain being torn. Luke has the curtain torn before Jesus dies, but Ehrman states that Mark has it being torn afterward. So which is it? They can’t both be right. Well, let’s read the two passages. Luke 23:44-46 reads, “It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last.” There it is, Luke states that the curtain was torn before Jesus died.
Turning to Mark, we read in 15:33-34 & 37-38, “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ … And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.” Looks like Ehrman’s right, Mark has the curtain torn after Jesus died. Except there’s a problem. The word ‘And.’ Does it mean “this then that” or does it mean “one event occurred and another event occurred?” The Greek word there is ‘kai’ (kahee) which means “also or both.”
Mark is giving us information about what is also happening when Jesus dies. Both Mark and Luke have the same time frame, “… at the ninth hour ….” It is at this hour that Jesus dies and the curtain is torn. The focus of Mark is Jesus’ death, but he also wants us to know that the curtain was torn at his death too. However, Luke shares how Jesus prophesied the coming destruction of the temple, so Luke links what’s happening at the temple and Jesus’ death. In other words, they both tell us the same thing, but different in sharing the events in such a way to make a point within their specific Gospel.
If we understand the point of view of each writer we can understand the way in which they present Jesus’ life. Mark is writing from Peter’s sermons. Peter is sharing the point of Jesus’ death, but adds, “and hey this curtain tore at the same time.” However Luke states in his opening that his purposes is to share the events by way of the witnesses. Mark is telling a sermonized short version of Jesus’ life, whereas Luke is trying to tell a more in order historical event.
Again, it’s not that they are contradictory, but that through multiple accounts of Jesus’ life, we get a better understanding. Just like when a husband and wife tell the same story, you get a fuller picture of what happened.
What we have just done is what’s called harmonizing the passages. That means we look at the passages and see how they fit together as an overarching story. But what does Ehrman think of such a practice? He writes on the subject, “When readers then throw both Matthew and John into the mix, they get an even more confused and conflated portrayal of Jesus, imagining wrongly that they have constructed the envoys as they really happened … It gives a fifth story, a story that is completely unlike any of the canonical four, a fifth story that in effect rewrites the Gospels, producing a fifth Gospel … The historical approach to the Gospels allows each author’s voice to be heard and refuse to conflate them into some king of mega-Gospel that flattens the emphases of each one.”
I don’t agree with Ehrman on this point. Instead, I believe there should be a two-fold approach. First, we let each of the writers tell us what they want to say. We understand their theological purposes as to why they compile the work they do. This allows for the many nuances of Jesus’ life to be revealed. Matthew wants us to understand Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Mark wants us to answer the question, “Who do we say Jesus is?” Luke wants as tidy a historical record as he can produce. John wants us to know why he calls himself the beloved disciples and so shows us Jesus on a personal level. And we could go on through the whole of Scripture understanding each of the writers purposes for their work.
The second approach is to then take these witnesses and understand the overarching life story of Jesus and the story of God. Connecting the pieces to the fuller story like a detective at a crime scene. No one book can hold every piece of the puzzle, but the more we have the better picture is seen. In fact, John, in his Gospel, touches on this very idea when he writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (20:30-31)”
In the case of the Gospels, Ehrman believes we shouldn’t be creating a fifth Gospel to figure out things like the life of Jesus. However, you might remember in our first week, I quoted Ehrman as stating, “I talked about why historians have problems using the Gospels as historical sources, in view of their discrepancies and the fact that they were written decades after the life of Jesus … I also talk about how scholars have devised methods for reconstructing what probably happen in the life Jesus …” In other words, Ehrman has himself spent his life creating a fifth Gospel, a Gospel that he believes is truer than what is given in the New Testament. Again, he imposes rules for others that he doesn’t use for himself. There’s just no way to win with him.
Finally, I said last week that we would come to a conclusion on the concept of inerrancy. I want to add to that the idea of infallibility. First, there are two definitions of inerrancy. The first is the popular, and by that I mean the widely held definition, but not scholarly definition. This definition usually looks at the English Bible in your hands, and states, every word is right. However, by this definition, what happens when the number of the beast isn’t actually 666, it’s actually 616? Or what if the longer ending of Mark wasn’t a part of the original manuscripts? For a lot of people that means that the Bible is wrong and isn’t inerrant.
But this isn’t actually the true concept of inerrancy. The definition that theologians uses is, “… the term … refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of the Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to salvation.” The Bible is inerrant in how we are to conduct our lives to it. This is based, not on your translation, but on the original writings. We might have errors in some manuscripts, but scholars can trace those errors through a manuscript’s linage and find out where the error came from. Yes, there are about 66 points in Scripture that scholars debate on, but even those do not change orthodox Christian faith.
This is where the term infallibility comes in. Again the theological definition is, “The Bible will not fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way of salvation to humans.” And it hasn’t. If you are a faithful follower Jesus today, it’s because the word of God has not failed in bringing you the message of salvation. The Bible is a sure foundation to how God has spoke and continues to speak to people, bringing them into salvation, and into greater trust of who he is. I hope that these last two weeks have given you a greater trust in the Scriptures and the work that God has performed in preserving, even though finite and sin compromised humans, his message in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment