Review of Misquoting Jesus

Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why Hard Cover, 272 pages Author: Bart D. Ehrman Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers Language: English ISBN-13: 9780060859510

I had heard great things about this book, even from those who disagree with the author, and so finding it at my local library, I picked it up. And am glad I did. I enjoyed the book throughout!

Misquoting Jesus is a great introduction into the field of textual criticism, by someone with a lot of expertise in the field. Ehrman intends to show the reader that the New Testament books have a multiplicity of alterations that have accumulated over time, and illustrate briefly the tools that scholars and others use to try to get back – as close as possible – to the “original” content. Ehrman offers a gripping narrative, and his retelling of history is often insightful and well-orchestrated. Whether discussing theologically-motivated changes to the text, or just misspellings and other accidental alterations, Ehrman shows a great love and respect for the value of the Bible; if not as a religiously authoritative book, at least pivotal in the making of Western culture.

Ehrman’s style is friendly and polite, which is very much appreciated in a work of this nature. He offers a lot of questions, and though rhetorical, or soon answered, this gives the book a feel of conversation, rather than just prolonged diatribe. Though intending to show that scribes did in fact alter the text, both accidentally and purposefully at times, he shows great compassion for the labors of scribes – especially those of the second and third centuries – those who did the work as amateurs, in his view, not as professionals. Sometimes, Ehrman’s sentences don’t flow nicely, seeming jumpy, lacking a good flow. But even in these instances, it is because he is trying to be diplomatic and lead his reader, rather than just make an assertion and move on.

Though I enjoyed Ehrman’s style and wealth of information, I did not always agree with either his assumptions/assertions, or his conclusions. Much of the information he shares I see no reason to disagree with, but I don’t feel compelled to go along with all of the conclusions reached. But he provided a truly great amount of information that can be reviewed and studied by those who are truly interested and willing to dig deeper. His passion and awareness of the mystery and adventure – the detective work of the textual critic – is likely to inspire many readers to look more deeply at the Scripture they read – even if they find they cannot agree with Ehrman at times. I know I have a number of things to look at more deeply, questions or topics that Ehrman brought to my attention (such as the original wording of Hebrews 1:3).

I did find some amount of inconsistency at times: one particular instance that stands out is the multiple times he refers to 1 Timothy 3:16 and its textual variants. The first time it is introduced, it is described as an accidental alteration, used to describe the use of nomina sacra and exemplary of bleed-through of the page. The second time, however, it is a theologically-motivated alteration. I was left wondering what to make of this clash of thoughts.

Also, Ehrman seems unwilling to treat New Testament usage of Old Testament, and its effects – good or bad – on the art and science of textual criticism. A number of times he simply ignores the ramifications that a review of Old Testament usage and form would have had on the understanding or alteration of a specific passage, even when it would have supported his argument. (e.g. the discussion of “Today I have begotten you” and its relationship to anti-adoptionism on pages 159-160)

Overall, I give this book ★★★☆☆. It is a very readable introduction to the history of New Testament textual criticism, and is sure to provide food for thought for the mindful reader.

Blessings

Merry Christmas, everyone! I hope you are able to take some time to remember Jesus’ birth – the wildness of the  love of God that sent his Son to live as one of us, to identify with us in every way. How many of us love our friends, and even our enemies, enough to live among them and come to know them that well – not just as adversaries, but as intimates and family? That’s pretty amazing, if you ask me.

And blessings to you and your families! May you see the faithfulness of God as we head towards the new year.

WOTD, εἰμί

The word of the day is…

εἰμί, ἔσομαι, -, -, -, -

Classical Greek, eimi, esomai, -, -, -, -, 1. to “be”

As you can see, the verb is only found in the present (active only) and future (the future has a middle deponent form). The present is quite irregular, but the future is fairly regular, with the exception of the third person singular.

At the beginning of a sentence, note that 3rd person singular present indicative active ἔστι(ν) is not an enclitic. Used in this way, it can have the idea of “It is possible…” or “There is…”

Since this is such an irregular verb, I thought I would post the present-based forms:

Present Infinitive Active: εἶναι

Present and Imperfect Active:

	1ps	2ps	3ps	1pp	2pp	3pp
Present Indicative Active	εἰμί	εἶ	ἐστί(ν)	ἐσμέν	ἐστέ	εἰσί(ν)
Present Subjunctive Active	ὦ	ᾖ	ᾖ	ὦμεν	ἦτε	ὦσι(ν)
Present Optative Active	εἴην	εἴης	εἴη	εἶμεν/εἴημεν	εἶτε/εἴητε	εἶεν/εἴησαν
Present Imperative Active	-	ἴσθι	ἔστω	-	ἔστε	ἔστων/ὄντων
Present Imperfect Active	ἦ/ἦν	ἦσθα	ἦν	ἦμεν	ἦτε	ἦσαν

And the present active participle forms:

	M	F	N
Nominative Singular	ὤν	οὖσα	ὄν
Genitive Singular	ὄντος	οὖσης	ὄντος
	…

common misconception

From page 7 of The Discipline of Grace: Study Guide:

CENTRAL IDEA

Contrary to a common misconception, we do not earn or forfeit God’s blessings in our daily lives based on our performance. Regardless of our performance we are always dependent on God’s grace, which is his unmerited favor to those who deserve his wrath.

Jeff Bridges

Any thoughts on this quote? Though I agree that our performance cannot “earn” us salvation, it seems a stretch to say emphatically that our performance after we have received God’s grace does not impact the way in which God can reward/punish us. Now, Jeff Bridges does restrict his statement to our daily lives – but even then, this seems to miss the boat. Doesn’t our “performance” – falling into sin or exhibiting spiritual fruit – have an impact on our ability to perceive what God is doing, and thus our ability to respond? Doesn’t submitting ourselves to sin have the possibility of us forfeiting opportunities from God to serve, in the here and now? I would myself consider spiritual fruit, which we cannot produce in our own effort, as a blessing from God we experience in our daily lives as we follow him more closely.

We are certainly going to be judged, as believers, for our actions one day (2 Corinthians 5:10).  Is it so bad if God, even now, rewards us – not on a “good enough” scale, but on a “response to his Spirit” scale?

In The Mail

Ah, the second installment from Koinonia’s ZIBBCOT contest came today… Volume 1 of Zondervan’s illustrated background commentaries. I just browsed quickly through it before making dinner, but what I saw whet my appetite to begin reading it!