Lesson 5 - Period of Criticism and Revision (Textual Criticism)

Last night we watched the complete lecture given by Dr. Bart Ehrman at Stanford University in 2007.  It was a consolidated presentation of the essential content of his book "Misquoting Jesus".  Here is a link to the lecture and transcript for those who were unable to attend.

Lecture Link: Ehrman Lecture: Misquoting Jesus
Transcript Link: Bart Ehrman - Stanford University Lecture (Misquoting Jesus) (Special thank you to Sarah and Ronna for all the hours you put into completing the transcript!)

Before we listened to his lecture I instructed the class to make every attempt to extract his primary thesis and supporting evidences.

Thesis:

The Bible can not be inspired by the God because 1.) we do not have the New Testament autographs (original writings), and 2.) there are too many variants among the extant (existing) manuscripts to determine the original words.  Therefore, faith in Jesus is misplaced and irrational.

If we were to place this thesis in the form of a logical argument it would read something like this.

1. If the Bible is the inspired word of the God, then 1.) God will ensure the preservation of the original autographs (writings) throughout time, 2.) there will be no variants in the copies of the autographs, and 3.) there will be no apparent or actual discrepancies between their historical accounts.
2. He did not preserve the original autographs.
3. There are between 400,000 and 500,000 textual variants among the existing manuscripts.
4. There are discrepancies in the historical accounts.
5. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired word of the God.

Evidences:

1. We do not have a copy of any of the original autographs.
2. There are between 400,00 and 500,000 textual variants in the existing manuscripts.
3. The variants can be divided into spelling and grammatical errors, as well as unintentional and intentional changes.  Spelling and grammatical variants are exactly that, misspelled words and errors in grammar.  Among other things, unintentional changes include such things as accidentally skipping words, lines and pages.  Intentional changes include changes by scribes in order to support personal theologies.

As a side note, his next logical argument is thus;

1. If the Bible is not the inspired word of the God, then we can not know if God exists.
2. The Bible is not the inspired word of the God.
3. Therefore, we can not know if God exists.

I trust all of you will be able to see the flaws in the logic for the second argument as we spent all of last year studying this very topic.

What is interesting is that Dr. Ehrman, in making his case against the inspiration of the Bible, must, by necessity, demonstrate that the gospel narratives are not historically reliability.  For example, he pointed out the apparent discrepancies between the resurrection accounts of the four gospels.  Therefore, one additional logical argument being subtly communicated (and logically heard by the uncritical listener) is as follows.

1. If the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy, then we can know that Jesus was resurrected.
2. The gospel accounts are not historically trustworthy.
3. Therefore, we can not know if Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected.

The logical conclusion, then, is that faith in Jesus as savior is misplaced and irrational.

While we, at this time, are not concerned with the topic of inspiration, we are interested in the topic of historical reliability.  Initially, we are interested in questions such as;

• Exactly what are the types of variants?
• Do the textual variants prevent historians, as well as us, from determining the words of the original letters?
• What affect do any of the variants have on essential doctrines of Christianity?

These, among others, are the questions we will be exploring over the weeks to come.  Beginning next week I will begin breaking down the variants into digestible pieces so we can understand not just their number, but their impact on content.

P.S. - I will also present some of the things Dr. Ehrman says he DOES believe based on the historical accounts given in the New Testament.  It's not as bleak a picture as he paints in his Stanford lecture.

Until then, Blessings!

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 4: Period of Criticism and Revision (Part 2)

Lesson 4 Part 2 Slides

Last night we concluded our investigation around the nature the four gospels. (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)   What we discovered is that these four writings are THE sources unanimously referenced and used by the early church prior to the councils of AD 325 or 397.  In fact, we read the source material which clearly delineated these four, which have their origin within the 1st century (and most likely before AD 70), as the sources to be used for the study of Christ's life and ministry.  That is not to say other New Testament writings were not unanimously accepted by the early church.  There were many others, all of which we have in our modern translations.  However, we did see that a few of the New Testament writings endured a period where they were "disputed" as to their being God-given.  That is a question we will need to explore at a later time.

Here are the conclusions we reached based on the content of our study together.

1. Our objective at this time is not to determine “Revelation” or “Inspiration” of the gospel accounts, but to determine historical trustworthiness by applying the same tests of historical reliability applied to all historical documents.
2. Authors from the period before Constantine identified the gospels as authoritative and universally accepted.
3. The fact that the gospels were being read and before AD 100 by those who were contemporaries of the Apostles and disciples proves they were written during their era.
4. Other of our New Testament writings were considered authoritative and universally accepted, but some were considered "disputed" for a time.
5. The universal acceptance of the four gospels was established WELL BEFORE Constantine, the Council of Nicaea (AD325) or the Council of Carthage (AD397).

All of these conclusions stand in direct contrast to the arguments given, and generally accepted, by those who have not done their own homework.

Our next endeavor is to understand why we believe we have the original wording of the gospels.  This will be difficult.  At some point we will have to place faith in those who know the material.  But we will do our best to fully understand the arguments and evidence given on both sides of the discussion.

Blessings!

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 4: Period of Criticism and Revision (Part 1)

New Testament Canon

During the next phase of our study we will turn to the Canon of the New Testament.  More specifically, we are concerned with the 4 gospels.  As part of our historical study we want to know if these four writings are the appropriate source material for the remainder of our study.

As such, we are not concerned, AT THIS POINT, with the concepts of Revelation, Inspiration.  Neither are we concerned with determining whether or not these four writing are "Inerrant."  This is not to say they are not critically important.  They are to the Christian, but not the non-Christian.  Therefore, those Christian doctrines do not pertain to our endeavor at this time.  Instead, we are merely concerned with determining the historical veracity of what they report; namely, Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection.  Are they, or are they not, historically accurate.

As we look to determine if we have the correct source material we cannot escape the topic of Canonicity.  However, we will stop short of delving into the doctrines listed above.

During our last class we read a number of quotations from the resource "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by the late C. Dennis McKinsey. (Side note: I spoke with you about the fact that McKinsey was a self-proclaimed Stalinist/Communist.  I did so, not to say whether his worldview was true or false, but to point out that what we are studying does matter.  McKinsey had a faith-based worldview and dedicated his life to evangelizing others according to what he believed to be true.  As a result, any number of people, many of whom were college-age children, under his charge have been influenced by him.  Have we yet realized the importance of incorporating the same devotion into our Christian apologetic that would allow us to lovingly do the same?)

Using McKinsey's book we saw some of the common arguments given against the New Testament Canon.

• The NT Canon wasn't determined until after AD 400.
• The gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus or the apostles; nor were they written by anyone during that era.
• The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.
• The NT Canon was decided by political power exerted within the church.
• The NT Canon was decided by Committee.
• Vital writings of the time were eliminated and hidden through political influence.

The implications and unspoken assumptions of these assertions include;

• The gospels are not trustworthy historical documents.
• The NT canon was determined by man instead of God.
• Had the church councils voted differently, then our beliefs and doctrines would be different.
• There was no criteria employed by the church councils in determining the NT canon except for political influence and power.
• The writings of our modern NT played no significant or unique role in the early church. (AD 100-400)
• The writings of our NT are no different in influence than writings of the second century and beyond.
• Consequently, Christianity is a completely blind faith.  There is no objective historical evidence upon which to base Christian faith and doctrine.

Given the above arguments, we then began to look at original source material written before and during the 2nd century that indicates whether or not the 4 gospels had any special appeal and influence on the people of the early church.  As we continue we will read directly from the following historians and writings prior to AD 300.

• The Didache
• Marcion
• Papias
• Justin Martyr
• Tatian
• Irenaeus
• The Muratorian Fragment
• Tertullian
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Eusebius

It is important to note that all of the above writers and writings occur well before AD 325; which stands in direct contrast to the common arguments disseminated in our modern culture.

We will pick up Thursday night with a review of our last class and then take a careful look at the remaining material.

See you Thursday.

Blessings!
Ricky