Loading...
In October 2019 I was invited to a Christian apologetics conference in Chicago to give a talk. (click the link to see my post about it). As you may know, “apologetics” is big in evangelical Christian circles; it is the attempt to demonstrate the intellectual reasonableness of the faith, to “defend” the truth of Christian claims (for example, mounting evidence for the actual resurrection of Jesus, for the infallibility of the Bible, and so on). It is highly unusual for a non-evangelical to be invited to talk at one of these things, but they wanted me to come to speak alongside three very conservative Christian apologists so that the audience could hear “the other side.” We all talked about contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. I said they were numerous and signficant and, short story, the others said they were not.
You would think I’d be entering the Lion’s Den, but in fact it was great fun and everyone was well behaved and good natured.
The scholar who organized the conference was Kurt Jaros, a young evangelical theologian who at the time was finishing up a PhD at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. I met Kurt there and we had a long talk and I enjoyed it all very much. We’ve stayed in touch since, and now recently he has volunteered to share with the blog some videos that he has made dealing with my book Misquoting Jesus, where, rather than attacking it (the typical evangelical approach) (or rather, the “virtually universal” evangelical approach) he points out that what apologists claim I say in the book is not actually what I do say.
Now *that’s* a refreshing take! I’ve agree to re-post the posts for your viewing pleasure. Here’s the first one! Kurt will be happy to deal with your responses.
Misquoting Ehrman – Part One: Introduction
“Have evangelical Christians botched Bart Ehrman’s positions in Misquoting Jesus?” That was the question I was continually asking myself as I was reading Misquoting Jesus this past autumn. It was the first time I had a chance to give Ehrman’s book a detailed read. I had heard many things about it, especially from Christian New Testament scholars and apologists, and usually the idea about it was that the author communicates a radical skepticism about our knowledge of the New Testament writings. But that idea was not a position Ehrman was presenting. Indeed, he was writing about a “conservative process” that transmitted the text throughout the years. Frequently there would be errors that found their way into the manuscripts, but the vast majority of these errors were miniscule. The message from many Christian scholars and apologists about Ehrman & Misquoting Jesus was far from accurate, and a correction from within the evangelical community was needed.
I’m an evangelical theologian (D. Phil, University of Aberdeen), and I agree with Bart Ehrman.
Thank you for taking my question here. I’m doing a little online search for names given in Luke’s genealogy for the line of ancestors to Jesus, (beginning at 3:23) and it occurs to me that “Nathan” is listed as the son of David. Now, of course, I know that Nathan is a prophet to David, right? Another name example, “Jannai” I can not even find in the OT. Now, these could not be a scribal error possibly, or would you, Prof. Ehrman, possibly have a clue as to what this mishmash of names could be about? Have you drawn any theories about Luke’s Jesus’ genealogy?
As I’ve spent more time learning about textual criticism, the less I feel it matters whether we have the “original” New Testament. Since it was written decades after Jesus died by anonymous authors (and Paul) who all had a theological goal in writing their book and never met Jesus, the errors in the NT do not seem very important to me. It’s great to know about them but more or less errors in my opinion do not change the bigger concerns about how and why the NT was written.
Hi cstu,
While textual criticism is purposed to pursue the earliest available form (or original) of the text, it can be utilized (justifiably or not) in the work of discerning whether there is an error in the original. This is how some Christians get around Mark’s mention of “Abiathar” in Mark 2:26; they posit that this was a copyist error and the original had “Ahimelech”.
As to your comments about theological bias … we all have biases. Even authors of non-religious texts of biases (e.g. political bias). Sometimes bias is unwarranted, but sometimes it is warranted. I would not dismiss a text apriori simply because it has theological underpinnings or entailments.
Cool. Nice intro.
He seems like a pleasant, engaging, and intelligent young man.
I have my “Redenbacher’s” at the ready, with some eggnog (juiced).
How much butter do you prefer?
Dr. Pepper is my beverage of choice. 🙂
Actually, it runs in my blood, to be completely honest.
Lots of butter–much to my wife’s chagrin.
“It’s the real thing … Coke is”
alt: Sprecher root beer
cheers!
@kjaros Bart introduced you as an “evangelical apologist”. In what main way do you consider yourself an apologist?
Hi Hank,
The main way I consider myself an apologist is that I produce apologetics/theological content (videos, events, public speaking, writing, etc.) to equip Christians with reasonable responses to objections to Christian theism, persuade non-believers that orthodox Christianity is an intellectually rational perspective, and to combat the arguments in the public square.
Bart mentioned the event he spoke at. Pre-covid, my organization produces an annual conference pitting differing views on a particular issue against each other. I’m not really interested in giving people information they can regurgitate but fail to understand; I’m more interested in helping people grow in their understandings of the issues, which means recognizing the variegated perspectives (each with their strengths and weaknesses). I think this approach is more productive in helping the individual grow, but also for community relations because it does not foster tribalism by painting persons as the enemy.
Hope that helps answer your question. Feel free to follow-up!
[Off-Topic] But having to do with translations: I see that an “Updated Version” of the NRSV will be available shortly (online by Christmas, they say) . . . When you have opportunity, could you comment on what you think is noteworthy about this update to what you consider the best translation, and whether any revisions are particularly good or helpful, or even perhaps unfortunate? Thanks!
It looks like there will be a lot of tweaking, but probably not a whole lot that’ll strike most readers as hugely significant. My friends on teh committee have not been allowed to say a whole lot about it. We’ll see!
Is there any historical fiction about the life of Jesus that you could recommend based on it being largely congruent with the findings of historical/critical method about the historical Jesus? Inevitably there will be interpretation but that’s ok if it stays largely within the historical parameters of, say, your “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.”
Or alternatively, could you recommend any historical fiction that stays within the parameters of one of the gospels (Luke’s currently my favorite) as it was intended by the gospel writer to be understood by his contemporaries–and as his contemporaries were likely to have understood it?
Is there evidence or reason to think that, in the gospels, some of Jesus’s miracle stories were intended mainly as literary devices to try to “express” how overwhelming an encounter with Jesus was-or how he affected the gospel writer or oral transmitter? They were unable to find other ways to express this? Could some of them be seen as intentionally “mythical”?
I’m trying to get at something a little different than simple praise of Jesus, than attempts to enhance his reputation or to evoke faith. Perhaps some of the miracle stories came about simply because people were at a loss for words to describe Jesus and his effect on them. They were trying to convey an inner experience.
Bart will certainly have a different take on this.
I think what you have proposed is a logical possibility, but I don’t think there is sufficient reason/evidence to embrace that model. Let’s assume that John’s Gospel is the most theologically developed of the 4 canonical Gospels. In his work he writes, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25). Granted, that last sentence should not be taken literally, but rhetorically. Nevertheless, the author demonstrates a commitment toward having written deeds of Jesus that actually occurred. Thus, even if a miracle event implies the author wanted to evoke some theological belief, that does not mean it did not happen. Historical events can carry theological significance.
Great question!
Hi, Kurt. Thanks for contributing.
How literally do you take the ascension story? If we had videotape, what do you believe we would have seen? Did Jesus fly high enough out of view and then vanish into another dimension, or did he fly up to a certain physical location?
In the famous words of Captain Kirk, “Beam me up, Scotty!”
It might be something akin to phasing out of this dimension into an alternative dimension (a spiritual realm).
Acts says he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid their view. They were looking intently up…
The text is clear that he floated up into the sky and the disciples were watching this. Do you personally believe Jesus literally floated up into space to then set foot in a physical Heaven?
The text does not say that he set foot in a *physical* Heaven.
Asking part of that a third time: do you believe Jesus literally floated/flew/levitated UP into the air while they watched him go up, up and away, until he was hidden by a cloud?
Hi Dr. J, thanks for sharing your perspective. I was raised by parents that loved apologetics and in churches that loved apologetics, and a lot of these questions still interest me a lot today. But before I left the faith I was really struggling with the seeming disconnect between fideism and rationalism at the heart of apologetics. Basically, if I can prove that God must exist, that he must be good, that he must have condescended to us in the person of Jesus, etc. Where is the place for faith left? Does apologetics reduce the role of faith in a practitioners life? And if it doesn’t or can’t what is apologetics actually supposed to be doing?
I look forward to hearing your perspective.
Geli,
Thanks for your questions.
“Where is the place for faith left?”
Faith/pistis is not so much in the assent of propositions like ‘God exists’ but more so in the bending of the knee and assenting our wills to His Lordship. I recommend checking out Matthew Bates’s book “Salvation By Allegiance Alone.” I think it’s a helpful recovery of faith as trust.
“Does apologetics reduce the role of faith in a practitioners life?”
Definitely not! I think it strengthen’s people’s faith(trust) by strengthening their confidence of the claims Christians make.
“what is apologetics actually supposed to be doing?”
I think the New Testament (particularly the book of Acts) shows three usages for apologetics: Strengthening the faith of believers, persuading open-minded seekers, or defending against the accusations of people who will not believe. This last point is usually ignored or never tried by most Christians, but I think is important *at a minimum* for quelling the vitriol that comes against Christianity (think of the late Christopher Hitchens’s claim that “religion poisons everything”).
Thanks for your good questions!
This is an unrelated question for Bart: I recently heard that the switch from scrolls to the codex (bound pages) for written works was key in leading to a fixed canon of the Old and New Testaments. Scrolls were usually individual books and all the scrolls in a collection (such as the Hebrew scriptures) would be stored in a container e.g. a basket. It was easy enough to remove some and add others. But once bound in a codex along with other writings (e.g. a complete New Testament) it was much harder to remove any and add new ones. So it became important to settle on a selection. How important (if at all) was this factor in hardening up the New Testament canon?
It’s specultation but it may be right. The problem is that most copies of books of the NT are not complete copies, Matthew to Revelation, but portions of the NT (Gospels; Paul’s letters; etc). So it’s not clear (to me at least) how much the code form contributed.
On the subject Jesus genealogy I found “Eusebius” explanation to be a great help.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. As Bart noted in his recent webinar, there is little evidence he knew Greek. Yet the Bible appears to have been originally written in Greek, meaning the sayings of Jesus are already a translation.
Many words in Aramaic have multiple meanings that are related but different, wo whoever wrote the Bible in the first place had to decide which meaning Jesus intended. How do we know that the meaning the authors chose is the one Jesus intended?
We can actually show in places that there are mistranslations from Aramaic.
Timmer, I might ask you what you mean by “know.” If you are seeking 100% certainty, you very likely won’t find it. If you’re looking for reliable certainty, I think we can have that. “How can we know?” Given their penchant for conveying facts of their place and time, we can trust the authors to have reliably conveyed the teachings of their rabbi.
That was very well done, Kurt. That may have been the best general summation of Bart that I’ve seen/read.
I look forward to the succeeding episodes.
Thanks! I try to understand authors in a charitable manner, even if I ultimately disagree with what they are saying. First one has to know what the person is saying before you can realize whether you disagree with it or not. ha!