Quellex

I just started reading this book and I was curious of the Christian apologetic against it in explaining away some of the issues raised.

I read this
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...cism-bart.html

The problem is my lack of foundation when it comes to biblical textual criticism and my inability to judge and merit apologetic related to the issues raised in Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). While I understand the issues raised I simply do not know enough about the Bible to judge whether the apologetic is good or not. I'm asking here because I know there are people with a lot of knowledge about the bible. How strong in summary are Ehrmans ideas about the corruption of scripture? And, has there been any good Christian rebuttals?

Julian

While I have not read Misquoting Jesus, I have read, several times, the more scholarly predecessor Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, upon which MQ is largely based. I also took a look at the link that you gave. First of all, Ben Witherington is an entirely pointless person and not worth any time or thought. Daniel Wallace, however, is an excellent and worthwhile scholar who should be granted a hearing. Unfortunately, his objections are quite weak and shows that even he is not free from bias that shows through in the desparate counter arguments that he produces.

He says that it is not revolutionary for Jesus to be angry in Mark 1:41 because he is angry in Mark 3:5. Dr. Wallace entirely misses the point. He misses it to such an extent that I am suspecting that he knows better but throws this out in desparation. Dr. Wallace completely ignores the context. In 1:41 Jesus is angry with a poor leper, hardly traditional Jesus-like behavior. His anger is understandable since the leper threaten to expose him for what he is, something Jesus is adamant must not happen throughout Mark. In 3:5 he is angry at the people who wants to accuse him, and accuse him because he is doing a good deed no less. Obviously, the two situations are entirely different and merit no comparison in spite of Dr. Wallace's argument.

He then talks about how there can be "no doubt" about Jesus talking about his prophetic ignorance. Using words like "no doubt" in a review that attacks an author for being "given to overstatement," that remark is downright humorous. Since Matthew knew of Mark and since there are obvious theological implications for whether or not Jesus knows his father's (his own?) intent, all of Dr. Wallace's objections here are just plain silly. Matthew changes Mark all the time (and sometimes not) so to use Mark as some sort of definitive proof for Matthew is a distortion. Wallace is defending the story behind the gospels whereas Ehrman is addressing the texts. Wallace seems incapable of separating the two.

Pointing out that the Trinitarian Formula was not original to the bible may seem obvious, resolved, and unimportant to a biblical scholar like Wallace, but he fails see that the book is writen for everybody, for lay people as he, himself, points out. How many of the people who read that book knew that the passage was not authentic? Or was in some bibles and not others? Probably almost no one. That's the point of the book: to inform. Apparently, Dr. Wallace is of the opinion that information is a bad idea. He confirms this later when he relates that his impression is that Ehrman is deliberately scaring the churchgoers. Not only is this highly dubious and would require much better backing than what Wallace offers, but one must also wonder why he would worry about something like that. After all, can't god take care of his own business?

Wallace and Witherington do their viewpoint no good when they attack a reasonable person like a gang of crazy old ladies. Now, it is entirely unlikely that Ehrman is completely correct in his assertions, undoubtedly he is wrong about a number of things, but it is certain that they are well-considered unlike the attacks of his petulant detractors.

One would do well to look for reviews based on facts, reviews that do not question or impugn the motives of the author, reviews that are based on a rational, textual approach.

Julian

Solo

Charming, Julian, but not sure where this sort of information adds anything to a reasoned debate. One would expect a moderator to outgrow the juvenile forms of bombast.

It is you who misses Wallace's point and the reason is simple: you have not read the book and therefore you have misread what Wallace charges, in Ehrman's comparing the two verses (pp.133-137). Ehrman claims that Luke and Matthew would have not removed Jesus' "feeling of compassion" from the leper story in 1:41 if it was there originally, but he understands why they would have removed the mention of his "anger". The problem that he gets himself into is that he offers 3:5 in contrasting this presumed operation where, Wallace says there was not any textual doubt of Mark portraying Jesus angry, and Luke and Matthew editing that anger out also. So, if Luke & Mat edited 3:5 in which Mark's Jesus was angry, what probative value have they in determining which Markan variant is the original one in 1:41 ? In so far as Ehrman argues that the original variant of 1:41 was not the one of "compassion" (as it would not likely have been edited out) he is all right (he should have stuck with the lectio difficilior potior claim).
But he seems to be contradicting himself by saying ,on the one hand, that the anger was unacceptable for the synoptic tradition that followed, and on the other, interpreting it from within that tradition. Whence Wallace's raised eyebrows.

I think you are not reading carefully what Wallace says. He doubts what Ehrman charges, i.e. agenda on the NT copyists' part in omitting "the "not even the Son" from Matthew. He promptly answers that since the same formula is present in Mk 13:32 (which I take it is invariant), then Jesus "no doubt" spoke of his own ignorance. This is theology; of course I cannot vouch for that, but if it is correct that Mk 13:32 is relatively untouched then the motive for the shorter reading of Mt 24:36 that Ehrman gives, does not pan out.

But don't forget, the "lay" reading of the Bible was relatively unknown until the rise of Protestantism.

Yup, I would agree with that. The principle behind Wallace's comment seems to be to uphold the Voltarean infamy which is good enough for the ignorant masses.

Julian, the petulance is entirely your own. There is nothing that prevents you from addressing the issues. No need for melodrama! They are evangelicals, what do you expect them to say to Ehrman ?

Would you outlaw evangelicals ? Are you that scared of them ?

Jiri

Steven Carr

It provides proof that Matthew and Luke really did remove mentions of anger in Mark.

I don't understand your point.

Wallace claims we have evidence that Matthew and Luke would edit out undisputed mentions of Mark depicting Jesus as angry. But this fact has no bearing on whether or not Matthew and Luke would edit out disputed mentions of Mark depicting Jesus as angry.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Solo

For which story? Mk 1:41 ? You cannot assume that which you seek to prove.

Actually, Wallace does not quite say that. My sentence may not be clear: I meant to say there was no reason for Ehrman to go for that comparison, but once he did (comparing 1:41 and 3:5 with equivalents from Lk & Mt) he got caught.
The simple test here is 1:41 being variant on anger and 3:5 not. Julian (and Ehrman, btw) thinks that the anger in the earlier verse was being edited because it "theologically" offended a later scribe (as it was directed against a helpless leper) whereas 3:5 has not (as it was directed against those who would prohibit him from healing him on Sabbath). Could be. But Ehrman, instead of sticking to Mark goes to compare him with Mt&Lk passages, which prompts the comment from Wallace ("Jesus' anger hardly revolutionary").

Jiri