Daniel Wallace'.pdf

8/14/2019 Daniel Wallace'.pdf

1/22

The Gospel according to Bart

A review of Bart D. Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bibleand Why1

Daniel B. Wallace

For most students of the NT, a book on textual criticism is a real yawn. The tedious detailsare not the stuff of a bestseller. But since its publication on November , !""#, Misquoting Jesus!

has been circlin$ hi$her and hi$her toward the %ma&on peak. %nd since Bart 'hrman, one ofNorth %merica(s leadin$ textual critics, appeared on two of N)*(s pro$rams +theDiane RehmShowandFresh Airwith Terry ross-both within the space of one weekit has been in thetop fifty sellers at %ma&on. Within three months, more than "",""" copies were sold. WhenNeely Tucker(s interview of 'hrman in TheWashington Postappeared on /arch # of this yearthe sales of 'hrman(s book shot up still hi$her. /r. Tucker spoke of 'hrman as a0fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the ori$ins of 1hristianity that he lost his faith

alto$ether.23Nine days later, 'hrman was the $uest celebrity on 4on 5tewart(s The Daily Show.5tewart said that seein$ the Bible as somethin$ that was deliberately corrupted by orthodoxscribes made the Bible 0more interestin$6almost more $odly in some respects.25tewartconcluded the interview by statin$, 07 really con$ratulate you. 7t(s a helluva book82 Within 9:hours,Misquoting Jesuswas perched on top of %ma&on, if only for a moment. Two months laterand it(s still flyin$ hi$h, stayin$ in the !# or so books. 7t 0has become one of the unlikeliestbestsellers of the year.29Not bad for an academic tome on a 0borin$2 topic8

Why all the hoopla; Well, for one thin$, 4esus sells. But not the 4esus of the Bible. The 4esusthat sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. %nd with a book entitledMisquotingJesus: The Story Behind Who hanged the Bi!le and Why, a ready audience was created via the

hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical 4esus is a fi$ment. 7ronically, almostnone of the variants that 'hrman discusses involvesayingsof 4esus. The book simply doesn(tdeliver what the title promises. 'hrman preferred"ost in Transmission, but the publisher thou$htsuch a book mi$ht be perceived by the Barnes and Noble crowd as dealin$ with stock car racin$8'ven thou$h 'hrman did not choose his resultant title, it has been a publishin$ coup.

/ore importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wantsreasons not tobelieve, who considers the Bible a book of myths. 7t(s one thin$ to say that the stories in theBible are le$end< it(s =uite another to say that many of them were added centuries later. %lthou$h'hrman does not quitesay this, he leaves the impression that the ori$inal form of the NT wasrather different from what the manuscripts now read.

Thanks are due to Darrell >. Bock, Buist /. Fannin$, /ichael W. ?olmes, W. ?all ?arris, and William F.Warren for lookin$ at a preliminary draft of this article and offerin$ their input.

!5an Francisco@ ?arper5anFrancisco, !""#.

3Neely Tucker, 0The Book of Bart@ 7n the Bestseller A/is=uotin$ 4esus,( %$nostic %uthor Bart 'hrman)icks %part the ospels That /ade a Disbeliever ut of ?im,2 Washington Post, /arch #, !""C. %ccessed [email protected]$tonpost.comwpEdyncontentarticle!""C"3"9%*!""C"3"9"3C.html .

9Tucker, 0The Book of Bart.2

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org) Summer 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.htmlhttp://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html


2/22

%ccordin$ to 'hrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticisma discipline thathas been around for nearly 3"" yearsfor a lay audience.#%pparently he does not count theseveral books written by G4H nly advocates, or the books that interact with them. 7t seems that'hrman means that his is the first book on the $eneral discipline of NT textual criticism writtenby a bona fide textual critic for a lay readership. This is most likely true.

Textual Criticism 11

Misquoting Jesusfor the most part is simply NT textual criticism ". There are sevenchapters with an introduction and conclusion. /ost of the book +chs. I9- is basically a popularintroduction to the field, and a very $ood one at that. 7t introduces readers to the fascinatin$world of scribal activity, the process of canoni&ation, and printed texts of the reek NT. 7tdiscusses the basic method of reasoned eclecticism. %ll throu$h these four chapters, varioussnippetsvariant readin$s, =uotations from Fathers, debates between )rotestants and 1atholicsare discussed, ac=uaintin$ the reader with some of the challen$es of the arcane field of textualcriticism.

1hapter +0The Be$innin$s of 1hristian 5cripture2- addresses why the NT books werewritten, how they were received, and when they were accepted as scripture.

1hapter ! +0The 1opyists of the 'arly 1hristian Writin$s2- deals with scribal chan$es to thetext, both intentional and unintentional. ?ere 'hrman mixes standard textEcritical informationwith his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, noreven most of them. 7n essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activityC, leavin$ theunwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recoverin$ the ori$inal wordin$ of the NT.

1hapter 3 +0Texts of the New Testament2- and chapter 9 +0The Juest for ri$ins2- take usfrom 'rasmus and the first published reek NT to the text of Westcott and ?ort. Discussed arethe maKor scholars from the sixteenth throu$h the nineteenth century. This is the most obKective

material in the book and makes for fascinatin$ readin$. But even here, 'hrman inKects his ownviewpoint by his selection of material. For example, in discussin$ the role that Ben$el played inthe history of textual criticism +"E!-, 'hrman $ives this pious erman conservative hi$hpraise as a scholar@ he was an 0extremely careful interpreter of the biblical text2 +"-< 0Ben$elstudied e#erythingintensely2 +-. 'hrman speaks about Ben$el(s breakthrou$hs in textualcriticism +E!-, but does not mention that he was the first important scholar to articulate thedoctrine of the orthodoxy of the variants. This is a curious omission because, on the one hand,'hrman is well aware of this fact, for in the fourth edition of The Te$t o% the &ew Testament, nowby Bruce /et&$er and Bart 'hrman,Lwhich appeared Kust months beforeMisquoting Jesus, theauthors note, 0With characteristic ener$y and perseverance, MBen$el procured all the editions,manuscripts, and early translations available to him. %fter extended study, he came to theconclusions that the variant readin$s were fewer in number than mi$ht have been expected andthat they did not sha'e any arti(le o% e#angeli( do(trine.2:n the other hand, 'hrman insteadmentions 4. 4. Wettstein, a contemporary of Ben$el, who, at the tender a$e of twenty assumed

#Misquoting, #.

C5ee especially #EC".

LBruce /. /et&$er and Bart D. 'hrman, The Te$t o% the &ew Testament: )ts Transmission* orru+tion*and Restoration+xford@ O), !""#-.

http://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/


3/22

that these variants 0can have no weakenin$ effect on the trustworthiness or inte$rity of the5criptures,2but that years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein chan$ed his views afterhe 0be$an thinkin$ seriously about his own theolo$ical convictions.2"ne is tempted to thinkthat 'hrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein@ like Wettstein, 'hrman startedout as an evan$elical when in colle$e, but chan$ed his views on the text and theolo$y in his more

mature years.

But the model that Ben$el suppliesa sober scholar who arrives at =uite differentconclusionsis =uietly passed over.

What is also curiously left out was Tischendorf(s moti#ationfor his indefati$able work ofdiscoverin$ manuscripts and of publishin$ a critical edition of the reek text with a fullapparatus. Tischendorf is widely acknowled$ed as the most industrious NT textual critic of alltime. %nd what motivated him was a desire to recover the earliest form of the texta text whichhe believed would vindicate orthodox 1hristianity a$ainst the ?e$elian skepticism of F. 1. Baurand his followers. None of this is mentioned inMisquoting Jesus.

Besides the selectivity re$ardin$ scholars and their opinions, these four chapters involve twocurious omissions. First, there is next to no discussion about the various manuscripts. 7t(s almost

as if external evidence is a nonstarter for 'hrman. Further, as much as he enli$htens his layreaders about the discipline, the fact that he doesn(t $ive them the details about whichmanuscripts are more trustworthy, older, etc., allows him to control the information flow.*epeatedly, 7 was frustrated in my perusal of the book because it spoke of various readin$swithout $ivin$ much, if any, of the data that supported them. 'ven in his third chapter0Textsof the New Testament@ 'ditions, /anuscripts, and Differences2there is minimal discussion ofthe manuscripts, and none of individual codices. 7n the two pa$es that deal specifically with themanuscripts, 'hrman speaks only about their number, nature, and variants.!

5econd, 'hrman overplays the =uality of the variants while underscorin$ their =uantity. ?esays, 0There are more variations amon$ our manuscripts than there are words in the New

Testament.2

3

'lsewhere he states that the number of variants is as hi$h as 9"",""".

9

That is trueenou$h, but by itself is misleadin$. %nyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this factis only part of the picture and that, if left dan$lin$ in front of the reader without explanation, is adistorted view. nce it is revealed that the $reat maKority of these variants are inconse=uentialinvolvin$ spellin$ differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, wordorder chan$es, and the likeand that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meanin$of the text, the whole picture be$ins to come into focus. 7ndeed, only about P of the textual

:/et&$erE'hrman, Te$t, #: +italics added-. This stands in direct contradiction to 'hrman(s assessment inhis conclusion +!"L-, =uoted above.

Juotation from 'hrman,Misquoting, !.

"7bid., 9.

5eeMisquoting, E#, where 'hrman chronicles his own spiritual Kourney.

!7n chapter #, 0ri$inals that /atter,2 'hrman discusses the method of textual criticism. ?ere he devotesabout three pa$es to external evidence +!:E3-, but does not mention any individual manuscripts.

3Misquoting, ". This is a favorite statement of his, for it shows up in his interviews, both in print and onthe radio.

9Misquoting, :.



4/22

variants are both meanin$ful and viable.#The impression 'hrman sometimes $ives throu$houtthe bookand repeats in interviewsCis that of wholesale uncertainty about the ori$inalwordin$,La view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.:

We can illustrate thin$s this way. There are approximately 3:,""" words in the reek NT.The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number.

%t first blush, that is a strikin$ amount. But in li$ht of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial.For example, consider the ways in which reek can say 04esus loves )aul2@

. QRSU VXYZ[

#For a discussion of the nature of the textual variants, see 4. 'd Gomos&ewski, /. 4ames 5awyer, DanielB. Wallace,Rein#enting Jesus: What The Da Hinci 1odeand ,ther &o#el S+e(ulations Don-t Tell ou+rand*apids@ Gre$el, /ay !""C-. The book is due out in 4une !""C. The section that addresses textual criticism,comprisin$ five chapters, is called 0)olitically 1orrupt; The Taintin$ of %ncient New Testament Texts.2

C0When 7 talk about the hundreds and thousands of differences, it(s true that a lot are insi$nificant. But it(salso true that a lot are hi$hly si$nificant for interpretin$ the Bible2 +'hrman in an interview with 4eri Grent&,

harlotte ,!ser#er, December L, !""# Maccessed [email protected]$reli$ion39!:#.htm-. 7n the same interview, when asked, 07f wedon(t have the ori$inal texts of the New Testamentor even copies of the copies of the copies of the ori$inalswhat do we have;2 'hrman responded, 0We have copies that were made hundreds of years laterin most cases,many hundreds of years later. %nd these copies are all different from one another.2 n The Diane RehmShow+National )ublic *adio-, December :, !""#, 'hrman said, 0There are more differences in our manuscripts than thereare words in the NT.2

LNote the followin$@ 0our manuscripts are6full of mistakes2 +#L-< 0Not only do we not have the ori$inals,we don(t have the first copies of the ori$inals. We don(t even have copies of the copies of the ori$inals, or copies ofthe copies of the copies of the ori$inals. What we have are copies made latermuch later6%nd these copies alldiffer from one another, in many thousands of places6 these copies differ from one another in so many places thatwe don(t even known how many differences there are2 +"-< 0/istakes multiply and $et repeated< sometimes they $etcorrected and sometimes they $et compounded. %nd so it $oes. For centuries2 +#L-< 0We could $o on nearly forever

talkin$ about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be chan$ed, either accidentally orintentionally. %s 7 have indicated, the examples are not Kust in the hundreds but in the thousands2 +:-< in discussin$4ohn /ill(s textual apparatus of L"L, 'hrman declares, 0To the shock and dismay of many of his readers, /ill(sapparatus isolated some thirty thousand places of variation amon$ the survivin$ witnesses6 /ill was not exhaustivein his presentation of the data he had collected. ?e had, in fact, found far more than thirty thousands places ofvariation2 +:9-< 05cholars differ si$nificantly in their estimatessome say there are !"",""" variants known, somesay 3"",""", some say 9"",""" or more8 We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments incomputer technolo$y, no one has yet been able to count them all2 +:-< he concludes his discussion of /ark C.E!"and 4ohn L.#3E:., the two lon$est textual problems of the NT by far, by sayin$ that these two texts 0represent Kusttwo out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be chan$ed by scribes2 +C:-.To say that these two textual problems are re+resentati#eof other textual problems is a $ross overstatement@ the ne$tlar$est viable omissionaddition problem involves Kust two verses. 'hrman does add that 0%lthou$h most of thechan$es are not of this ma$nitude, there are lots of si$nificant chan$es +and lots more insi$nificant ones-62 +C-.

\et even that is a bit misleadin$. By 0most of the chan$es2 'hrman means all other (hanges.:'.$., he opens chapter L with these words@ 07t is probably safe to say that the copyin$ of early 1hristians

texts was by and lar$e a Aconservative( process. The scribes6were intent on Aconservin$( the textual tradition theywere passin$ on. Their ultimate concern was not to modify the tradition, but to preserve it for themselves and forthose who would follow them. /ost scribes, no doubt, tried to do a faithful Kob in makin$ sure that the text theyreproduced was the same text they inherited2 +LL-. 07t would be a mistake6to assume that the only chan$es bein$made were by copyists with a personal stake in the wordin$ of the text. 7n fact, most of the chan$es found in ourearly 1hristian manuscripts have nothin$ to do with theolo$y or ideolo$y. Far and and away the Msi( most chan$esare the result of mistakes, pure and simpleslips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled



5/22

!. QRSU VX][ YZ[

3. QRSU VXYZ[

9. QRSU VX][ YZ[

#. YZ[ QRSU VX

C. ][ YZ[ QRSU VX

L. YZ[ QRSU VX

:. ][ YZ[ QRSU VX

. VXQRSU YZ[

".VXQRSU ][ YZ[

.VXQRSU YZ[

!.VXQRSU ][ YZ[

3.VXYZ[ QRSU9.VX][ YZ[ QRSU

#.VXYZ[ QRSU

C.VX][ YZ[ QRSU

These variations only represent a small fraction of the possibilities. 7f the sentence used ^_Z`instead of VX, for example, or if it be$an with a conKunction such as `v, _v, or [, thepotential variations would $row exponentially. Factor in synonyms +such as _U forQRSU-, spellin$ differences, and additional words +such as g_S]U, or V_U with YZU-and the list of potential variants that do notaffect the essence of the statement increases to the

hundreds. 7f such a simple sentence as 04esus loves )aul2 could have so many insi$nificantvariations, a mere 9"",""" variants amon$ the NT manuscripts seems like an almost ne$li$ibleamount.

words, blunders of one sort or another2 +##-. 0To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of chan$es found amon$the manuscripts, most of them are completely insi$nificant62 +!"L-. 5uch concessions seem to be wrun$ out of him,for these facts are contrary to his a$enda. 7n this instance, he immediately adds that 07t would be wron$, however, tosayas people sometimes dothat the chan$es in our text have no real bearin$ on what the texts mean or on thetheolo$ical conclusions that one draws from them2 +!"LE:-. %nd he prefaces his concession by the bold statementthat 0The more 7 studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more 7 reali&ed Kust how radically thetext had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes62 +!"L-. But this is another claim without sufficientnuancin$. \es, scribes have chan$ed the text, but the vast maKority of chan$es are insi$nificant. %nd the vast

maKority of the rest are easily detectable. ne almost $ets the sense that it is the honest scholar in 'hrman who isaddin$ these concessions, and the theolo$ical liberal in 'hrman who keeps the concessions at a minimum.

This illustration is taken from Daniel B. Wallace, 0>ayin$ a Foundation@ New Testament Textual1riticism,2 in)nter+reting the &ew Testament Te$t: )ntrodu(tion to the Art and S(ien(e o% /$egesis+aFests(hri%tfor?arold W. ?oehner-, ed. Darrell >. Bock and Buist /. Fannin$ +Wheaton, 7>@ 1rossway, Mforthcomin$@ !""C-.

ne more item could be mentioned about 'hrman(s lacunae on the manuscripts. 'hrman seems to be$radually movin$ toward an internal priority view. ?e ar$ues for several readin$s that are han$in$ onto externalevidence by a bare thread. This seems stran$e because Kust months beforeMisquoting Jesusappeared, the fourthedition of Bruce /et&$er(s Te$t o% the &ew Testamentwas published, coEauthored this time by Bart 'hrman. \et in



6/22

But these criticisms are minor =uibbles. There is nothin$ really earthEshakin$ in the first fourchapters of the book. *ather, it is in the introduction that we see 'hrman(s motive, and the lastthree chapters reveal his a$enda. 7n these places he is especially provocative and $iven tooverstatement and non sequitur.The remainder of our review will focus on this material.

!hrman"s !#angelical Bac$ground7n the introduction, 'hrman speaks of his evan$elical back$round +three years at /oody

Bible 7nstitute, two years at Wheaton 1olle$e where he first learned reek-, followed by an/.Div. and )h.D. at )rinceton 5eminary. 7t was at )rinceton that 'hrman be$an to reKect some ofhis evan$elical upbrin$in$, especially as he wrestled with the details of the text of the NT. ?enotes that the study of the NT manuscripts increasin$ly created doubts in his mind@ 07 keptrevertin$ to my basic =uestion@ how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word ofod if in fact we don(t have the words that od inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied bythe scribessometimes correctly and sometimes +many times8- incorrectly;2!"This is anexcellent =uestion. %nd it is featured prominently inMisquoting Jesus, bein$ repeated

throu$hout the book. Onfortunately, 'hrman does not really spend much time wrestlin$ with itdirectly.

While he was in the master(s pro$ram, he took a course on /ark(s ospel from )rofessor1ullen 5tory. For his term paper, he wrote on the problem of 4esus speakin$ of David(s entry intothe temple 0when %biathar was the hi$h priest2 +/ark !.!C-. The wellEknown crux isproblematic for inerrancy because, accordin$ to 5am !, the time when David entered thetemple was actually when %biathar(s father, %himelech, was priest. But 'hrman was determinedto work around what looked to be the plain meanin$ of the text, in order to salva$e inerrancy.'hrman tells his readers, )rofessor 5tory(s comment on the paper 0went strai$ht throu$h me. ?ewrote, A/aybe /ark Kust made a mistake.(2!This was a decisive moment in 'hrman(s spiritualKourney. When he concluded that /ark may have erred, 0the flood$ates opened.2!!?e be$an to=uestion the historical reliability of many other biblical texts, resultin$ in 0a seismic chan$e2 inhis understandin$ of the Bible. 0The Bible,2 'hrman notes, 0be$an to appear to me as a veryhuman book6 This was a human book from be$innin$ to end.2!3

What strikes me as most remarkable in all this is how much 'hrman tied inerrancy to the$eneral historical reliability of the Bible. 7t was an allEorEnothin$ proposition for him. ?e stillseems to see thin$s in black and white terms, for he concludes his testimony with these words@07t is a radical shift from readin$ the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future toseein$ it as a very human book6 This is the shift in my own thinkin$ that 7 ended up makin$,and to which 7 am now%ully (ommitted.2!9There thus seems to be no middle $round in his view

that book, both authors speak more hi$hly of the external evidence than 'hrman does inMisquoting Jesus.!"Misquoting, L.

!7bid., . For a treatment of the problem in /ark !.!C, see Daniel B. Wallace, 0/ark !.!C and the )roblemof %biathar,2 'T5 5W re$ional meetin$, /arch 3, !""9, available at [email protected]$pa$e.asp;pa$eidj3:3 .

!!7bid.

!37bid., .

!97bid., 3 +italics added-.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3839http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3839http://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3839http://www.bible.org/


7/22

of the text. 7n short, 'hrman seems to have held to what 7 would call a Adomino view ofdoctrine.( When one falls down, they all fall down. We(ll return to this issue in our conclusion.

The %rthodox Corruption %& Scripture

The heart of the book is chapters #, C, and L. ?ere 'hrman especially discusses the results ofthe findin$s in his maKor work, The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture.!#?is concludin$ chaptercloses in on the point that he is drivin$ at in this section@ 07t would be wron$6to sayas peoplesometimes dothat the chan$es in our text have no real bearin$ on what the texts mean or on thetheolo$ical conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that Kust the opposite isthe case.2!C

We pause to observe two fundamental theolo$ical points bein$ stressed inMisquoting Jesus@first, as we mentioned previously, it is irrelevant to speak of the Bible(s inerrancy because we nolon$er have the ori$inal documents< second, the variants in the manuscripts chan$e the basictheolo$y of the NT.

The 'ogical (allacy in )enying an *nerrant +utograph%lthou$h 'hrman does not really develop this first ar$ument, it does deserve a response. We

need to be$in by makin$ a careful distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.7nspiration relates to the wordingof the Bible, while inerrancy relates to the truthof a statement.%merican evan$elicals $enerally believe that only the ori$inal text is inspired. This is not to say,however, that copies can(t be inerrant. 7ndeed, statements that bear no relation to scripture can beinerrant. 7f 7 say, 07 am married and have four sons, two do$s, and a cat,2 that(s an inerrantstatement. 7t(s not inspired, nor at all related to scripture, but it is true. 5imilarly, whether )aulsays 0we have peace2 or 0let us have peace2 in *om #., both statements are true +thou$h each ina different sense-, thou$h only one is inspired. Geepin$ this distinction in mind as we consider

the textual variants of the NT should clarify matters.*e$ardless of what one thinks about the doctrine of inerrancy, the ar$ument a$ainst it on the

basis of the unknown auto$raphs is lo$ically fallacious. This is so for two reasons. First, we havethe text of the NTsomewherein the manuscripts. There is no need for conKecture, except perhapsin one or two places.!L5econd, the text we have in any viable variants is no more a problem forinerrancy than other problems where the text is secure. Now, to be sure, there are somechallen$es in the textual variants to inerrancy. This is not denied. But there are simply bi$$er fish

!#The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o%the &ew Testament +xford@ O), 3-.

!C7bid., !":.

!L!:, n. # +to ch. :-, 07s What We ?ave Now What They Wrote Then;2 inRein#enting Jesusis hereduplicated@ 0There are two places in the New Testament where conKecture has perhaps been needed. 7n %cts C.!the standard critical reek text $ives a readin$ that is not found in any reek manuscripts. But even here, somemembers of the OB5 committee reKected the conKecture, ar$uin$ that certain manuscripts had the ori$inal readin$.The difference between the two readin$s is only one letter. +5ee discussion in Bruce /. /et&$er,A Te$tualommentary on the 0ree' &ew Testament, !d ed. M5tutt$art@ Deutsche Bibel$esellschaft, 9, 33I#< N'T Bible0tc2 note on %cts C.!.- %lso, in *evelation !.L the standard reek text follows a conKecture that Westcott and?ort ori$inally put forth, thou$h the textual problem is not listed in either the OB5 text or the NestleE%land text.This conKecture is a mere spellin$ variant that chan$es no meanin$ in the text.2



8/22

to fry when it comes to issues that inerrancy faces. Thus, if conKectural emendation isunnecessary, and if no viable variant re$isters much of a blip on the radar called Aproblems forinerrancy,( then not havin$ the ori$inals is a moot point for this doctrine. 7t(s not a moot point forverbal inspiration, of course, but it is for inerrancy.!:

Cardinal )octrines +&&ected by Textual ,ariants-'hrman(s second theolo$ical point occupies center sta$e in his book. 7t will accordin$ly

occupy the rest of this review.

7n chapters five and six, 'hrman discusses several passa$es that involve variants thatalle$edly affect core theolo$ical beliefs. ?e summari&es his findin$s in his concludin$ chapter asfollows@

7n some instances, the very meanin$ of the text is at stake, dependin$ on how oneresolves a textual problem@ Was 4esus an an$ry man M/ark .9; Was hecompletely distrau$ht in the face of death M?eb !.:I; Did he tell his disciplesthat they could drink poison without bein$ harmed M/ark C.I!"; Did he let an

adulteress off the hook with nothin$ but a mild warnin$ M4ohn L.#3I:.; 7s thedoctrine of the Trinity explicitly tau$ht in the New Testament M 4ohn #.LI:; 7s4esus actually called 0the uni=ue od2 there M4ohn .:; Does the NewTestament indicate that even the 5on of od himself does not know when the endwill come M/att !9.3C; The =uestions $o on and on, and all of them are related tohow one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down tous.!

7t is apparent that such a summary is intended to focus on the maKor problem passa$es that'hrman has uncovered. Thus, followin$ the wellEworn rabbinic principle of a maiore ad minus3",or ar$uin$ from the $reater to the lesser, we will address Kust these seven texts.

The .roblem With .roblem .assages

Three of these passa$es have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholarsincludin$most e#angeli(alNT scholarsfor well over a century +/ark C.I!"< 4ohn L.#3I:.< and 4ohn #.LI:-.3\et 'hrman writes as thou$h the excision of such texts could shake up ourtheolo$ical convictions. 5uch is hardly the case. +We will suspend discussion of one of thesepassa$es, 4ohn #.LI:, until the end.-

!:For a discussion of this issue, see Daniel B. Wallace, 07nerrancy and the Text of the New Testament@%ssessin$ the >o$ic of the %$nostic Hiew,2 posted in 4anuary !""C [email protected];cjhiG>b)N>rFbjL:999c tjL3".

!Misquoting, !":.

3"5ee ?ermann >. 5track,)ntrodu(tion to the Talmud and Midrash+%theneum, N\@ Temple, L:- 9, Cfor this hermeneutical principle known as1al Wa2homer.

3%n accessible discussion of the textual problem in these three passa$es can be found in the footnotes ofthe N'T Bible on these texts.

http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784441&chttp://www.bible.org/http://www.bible.org/http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784441&chttp://www.bible.org/


9/22

The 'ast T/el#e ,erses o& Mar$ and the .ericope +dulterae

%t the same time, 'hrman implicitly raises a valid issue. % $lance at virtually any 'n$lishBible today reveals that the lon$er endin$ of /ark and the+eri(o+e adulteraeare to be found intheir usual places. Thus, not only do the G4H and NG4H have these passa$es +as would beexpected-, but so do the %5H, *5H, N*5H, N7H, TN7H, N%5B, '5H, T'H, N%B, N4B, and

N'T. \et the scholars who produced these translations, by and lar$e, do not subscribe to theauthenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enou$h@ they don(t show up in the oldest andbest manuscripts and their internal evidence is decidedly a$ainst authenticity. Why then are theystill in these Bibles;

The answer to this =uestion varies. For some, they seem to be in the Bibles because of atradition of timidity. There are seemin$ly $ood reasons for this. The rationale is typically that noone will buy a particular version if it lacks these famous passa$es. %nd if they don(t buy theversion, it can(t influence 1hristians. 5ome translations have included the+eri(o+e adulteraebecause of mandate from the papal authorities declarin$ the passa$e to be scripture. TheN'B*'B include it at the end of the ospels, rather than in its traditional location. The TN7H

and N'T have both passa$es in smaller font with brackets around them. 5maller type of coursemakes it harder to read from the pulpit. The N'T adds a len$thy discussion about theinauthenticity of the verses. /ost translations mention that these pericopae are not found in theoldest manuscripts, but such a comment is rarely noticed by readers today. ?ow do we knowthis; From the shock waves produced by 'hrman(s book. 7n radio, TH, and newspaper interviewswith 'hrman, the story of the woman cau$ht in adultery is almost always the first text brou$ht upas inauthentic, and the mention is calculated to alarm the audience.

>ettin$ the public in on scholarly secrets about the text of the Bible is not new. 'dwardibbon, in his sixEvolume bestseller, The De(line and Fall o% the Roman /m+ire, noted that theomma Johanneum, or Trinitarian formula of 4ohn #.LI:, was not authentic.3!This scandali&ed

the British public of the ei$hteenth century, for their only Bible was the %uthori&ed Hersion,which contained the formula. 0thers had done Mthis before him, but only in academic andlearned circles. ibbon did so before the $eneral public, in lan$ua$e desi$ned to offend.233\etby the time the *evised Hersion appeared in ::#, no trace of the ommawas to be found in it.Today the text is not printed in modern translations, and it hardly raises an eyebrow.

'hrman has followed in ibbon(s train by exposin$ the public to the inauthenticity of /arkC.E!" and 4ohn L.#3E:.. The problem here, thou$h, is a bit different. 5tron$ emotionalba$$a$e is especially attached to the latter text. For years, it was my favorite passa$e that was notin the Bible. 7 would even preach on it as true historical narrative, even after 7 reKected itsliterarycanonical authenticity. %nd we all know of preachers who can(t =uite $ive it up, eventhou$h they, too, have doubts about it. But there are two problems with this approach. First, in

terms of popularity between these two texts, 4ohn : is the overwhelmin$ favorite, yet its externalcredentials are si$nificantly worse than /ark C(s. The same preacher who declares the /arkanpassa$e to be inauthentic extols the virtues of 4ohn :. This inconsistency is appallin$. 5omethin$is amiss in our theolo$ical seminaries when one(s feelin$s are allowed to be the arbiter of textual

3!'dward ibbon, The 3istory o% the De(line and Fall o% the Roman /m+ire, 'dition De>uxe, six volumes+)hiladelphia@ 4ohn D. /orris, M""- 3.L"3I#.

334ames Bentley, Se(rets o% Mount Sinai: The Story o% the ode$ Sinaiti(us+>ondon@ rbis, :#- !.



10/22

problems. 5econd, the+eri(o+e adulteraeis most likely not even histori(allytrue. 7t wasprobably a story conflated from two different accounts.39Thus, the excuse that one can proclaimit because the story really happened is apparently not valid.

7n retrospect, keepin$ these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than rele$atin$ them to thefootnotes seems to have been a bomb Kust waitin$ to explode. %ll 'hrman did was to li$ht the

fuse. ne lesson we must learn fromMisquoting Jesusis that those in ministry need to close the$ap between the church and the academy. We have to educate believers. 7nstead of tryin$ toisolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be ready forthe barra$e, because it is comin$.3#The intentional dumbin$ down of the church for the sake offillin$ more pews will ultimately lead to defection from 1hrist. 'hrman is to be thanked for$ivin$ us a wakeEup call.

This is not to say that everythin$ 'hrman has written in this book is of that ilk. But thesethree passa$es are. %$ain, we need to stress@ these texts chan$e no fundamental doctrine, no corebelief. 'van$elical scholars have atheti&ed them for over a century without disturbin$ one iota oforthodoxy.

The remainin$ four textual problems, however, tell a different story. 'hrman appeals either toan interpretation or to evidence that most scholars consider, at best, doubtful.

0ebre/s 2345

Translations are rou$hly united in how they treat ?eb !.b. The N'T is representative@ 0byod(s $race he would experience death on behalf of everyone.2 'hrman su$$ests that 0by od(s$race2_]_ `qis a secondary readin$. 7nstead, he ar$ues that 0apart from od,2 orU `, is what the author ori$inally wrote. There are but three reek manuscripts that havethis readin$, all from the tenth century or later. 1odex L3, however, is one of them, and it is acopy of an early and decent manuscript. U ìs also discussed in several fathers, one

Hul$ate manuscript, and some copies of the )eshitta.3C

/any scholars would dismiss such paltryevidence without further ado. 7f they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because eventhou$h it has a poor pedi$ree, U ìs the harder readin$ and thus may re=uire someexplanation, since scribes tended to smooth out the wordin$ of the text. %s well, somethin$needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a readin$ is an unintentional chan$e, thecanon of the harder readin$ is invalid. The hardest readin$ will be a nonsense readin$, somethin$that cannot be created on purpose. %lthou$h U is apparently the harder readin$,3Lit can be

395ee Bart D. 'hrman, 04esus and the %dulteress,2 &TS39 +::- !9E99.

3#Because of this need,Rein#enting Jesuswas written. %lthou$h written on a popular level, it is backedwith serious scholarship.

3C'hrman says the readin$ 0occurs in only two documents of the tenth century2 +Misquoting Jesus, 9#-, bywhich he means only two 0ree'documents, "!93 +"!b- and L3txt. These manuscripts are closely related and

probably represent a common archetype. 7t is also found in 9!9c#id+thus, apparently a later correction in an eleventhcentury minuscule- as well as v$mssyrpmssri$en$r +vr-, lat/55accordin$ to ri$enTheodore Nestorians accordin$ to )sEecumeniusTheodoret !< lem%mbrose /55accordin$ to 4eromeHi$ilius Ful$entius. 'hrman does note some of the patristic evidence,underscorin$ an important ar$ument, vi&., 0ri$en tells us that this was the readin$ of the maKority of manuscripts inhis own day2 +ibid.-.

3LThis, however, is not necessarily the case. %n ar$ument could be made that _]_ ìs the harderreadin$, since the cry of dereliction from the cross, in which 4esus =uoted )s !!., may be reflected in the U



11/22

explained as an accidental alteration. 7t is most likely due either to a Ascribal lapse(3:in which aninattentive copyist confused U for _]_, or Aa mar$inal $loss( in which a scribe was thinkin$of 1or #.!L which, like ?eb !.:, =uotes )s :.C in reference to od(s subKection of all thin$s to1hrist.3

Without $oin$ into the details of 'hrman(s defense of U, we simply wish to note four

thin$s. First, he overstates his case by assumin$ that his view is (ertainlycorrect. %fter threepa$es of discussion of this text in his ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture, he pronounces theverdict@ 0The external evidence notwithstandin$, ?ebrews !@ musthave ori$inally said that4esus died Aapart from od.(29"?e(s still seein$ thin$s in black and white terms. 5econd,'hrman(s textEcritical views are $ettin$ dan$erously close to ri$orous eclecticism.9The externaldata seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to wantto see theolo$ical corruption in thetext. Third, even thou$h he is certain about his verdict, his mentor, Bruce /et&$er, is not. % yearafter ,rthodo$ orru+tionwas published, /et&$er(s second edition of his Te$tual ommentaryappeared. The OB5 committee still $ave the _]_ `readin$ the palm, but this timeu+grading their conviction to an A%( ratin$.9!Finally, even assumin$ that U `is the

`readin$, while dyin$ 0by the $race of od2 is not as clear.

3:5o /et&$er, Te$tual ommentary!, ##. 7n uncial script@ caritiqu vs. cwrisqu.

37bid. For similar ar$uments, see F. F. Bruce, The /+istle to the 3e!rews, rev ed, N71NT +rand *apids@'erdmans, "- L"IL, n. #. The point of the mar$inal $loss is that in ?eb !.: the author =uotes )s :.C, addin$that 0in the subKectin$ of all thin$s to him, he left nothin$ outside of his control.2 7n 1or #.!L, which also =uotes)s :.C, )aul adds the =ualifier that od was excluded from the Aall thin$s( that were subKected to 1hrist. /et&$erar$ues that the $loss was most likely added by a scribe 0to explain that Aeverythin$ in ver. : does not include odeper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 in &ew Testament 0ree' and /$egesis:/ssays in 3onor o% 0erald F. 3awthorne+rand *apids@ 'erdmans, !""3- LLI:.

#!/ark %. )roctor, 0The AWestern( Text of /ark @9@ % 1ase for the %n$ry 4esus2 +)h.D. diss., BaylorOniversity, -. 'ven thou$h 'hrman(s article appeared four years after )roctor(s dissertation, 'hrman did notmention )roctor(s work.

#3Misquoting, 3! +italics added-.

#9'hrman, 0% >eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 #.

##7bid., 9. 5ee also :L@ 04esus $ets an$ry on several occasions in /ark(s ospel< what is most interestin$

to note is that each account involves 4esus( ability to perform miraculous deeds of healin$.2#CThere are a few weak links in his overall ar$ument, however. First, he does not make out the best case

that every instance in which 4esus is an$ry is in a healin$ account. 7s the pericope about 4esus layin$ hands onchildren really a healingstory +".3EC-; 7t is unclear what disease these children are bein$ Ahealed( of. ?issu$$estion that the layin$ on of hands indicates healin$ or at least the transmission of divine power here is lame +0%>eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 ::-. Further, it proves too much, for ".C says that 4esus 0took the childrenin his arms and placed his hands on them and blessed them.2 To not see a compassionate and $entle 4esus in such atext is almost incomprehensible. 5o, if this is a healin$ narrative, it alsoimplies 4esus( compassion in the very act ofhealin$a motive that 'hrman says never occurs in healin$ narratives in /ark.



14/22

'hrman(s own interpretation, V_S`U only stren$thens the ima$e we see of 4esus in thisospel by makin$ it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his an$er. 7f this readin$is 'xhibit % in 'hrman(s fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little or nothin$ to alterthe overall portrait of 4esus that /ark paints. ?ere is another instance, then, in which 'hrman(stheolo$ical conclusion is more provocative than the evidence su$$ests.

Matthe/ 6278

7n the livet Discourse, 4esus speaks about the time of his own return. *emarkably, heconfesses that he does not know exactly when that will be. 7n most modern translations of /att

5econd, he claims that 4esus( healin$ of )eter(s motherEinElaw in /ark .3"E3 is not a compassionate act@0/ore than one wry observer has noted6that after he does so she $ets up to feed them supper2 +ibid., , n. C-. Butsurely 'hrman(s statementrepeated inMisquoting Jesus+3:-is simply a politically correct comment that ismeant to su$$est that for 4esus to restore the woman to a subservient role (annotbe due to his compassion. 7s not the

point rather that the woman was fully healed, her stren$th completely recovered, even to the point that she couldreturn to her normal duties and 4esus and his disciples; %s such, it seems to function similarly to the raisin$ of thesyna$o$ue ruler(s dau$hter, for as soon as her life was restored /ark tells us that 0the $irl $ot up at once and be$an

to walk around2 +/ark #.9!-.

Third, in more than one healin$ narrative in the synoptic ospelsincludin$ the healin$ of )eter(s motherEinElawwe see stron$ hints of compassion on 4esus( part when he $rabs the person(s hand. 7n /att .!#< /ark .3uke :.#9 the expression each time is ]SU]RS`[ ]U `_U. kratevw with ageniti#edirect obKect, rather than an accusative direct obKect, is used in these texts. 7n the ospels when this verb takes anaccusative direct obKect, it has the force ofsei8ing, (linging to, holding %irmly+cf. /att 9.3< !.9C< !!.C< !C.#Leper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 :C- implies that his interpretation surely must beri$ht. +%lthou$h 'hrman makes =uick work of various views, he does not interact at all with )roctor(s view,

apparently because he was unaware of )roctor(s dissertation when he wrote his piece for the ?awthorneFests(hri%t.)roctor essentially ar$ues that the healin$ of the leper is a dou!lehealin$, which also implicitly involves an exorcismM0% 1ase for the %n$ry 4esus,2 3!EC. )roctor summari&es his ar$ument as follows@ 0iven +- popular firstEcentury views re$ardin$ the link between demons and disease, +!- the exorcistic lan$ua$e of v 93, +3- the behavior ofdemoniacs and those associated with them elsewhere in the ospel, and +9- >uke(s treatment of /ark @!E3, thisseems to be a relatively safe assumption even thou$h /ark makes Msi( does not explicitly describe the man as ademoniac2 M3!#E!C, n. C.- Not only does 'hrman char$e exe$etes with misunderstandin$ /ark(s V_S`U, he alsosays that /atthew and >uke don(t understand@ 0M%nyone not intimately familiar with /ark(s ospel on its ownterms6 may not have understand why 4esus became an$ry. /atthew certainly did not< neither did >uke2 +ibid., :-.7s it not perhaps a bit too brash to claim that the reason /atthew and >uke dropped oKr$is=eivH was because they



15/22

!9.3C, the text basically says, 0But as for that day and hour no one knows itneither the an$elsin heaven, nor the Sonexcept the Father alone.2 ?owever, many manuscripts, includin$ someearly and important ones, lack U. Whether 0nor the 5on2 is authentic or not isdisputed.#LNevertheless, 'hrman a$ain speaks confidently on the issue.#:The importance of thistextual variant for the thesis ofMisquoting Jesusis difficult to assess, however. 'hrman alludes

to /att !9.3C in his conclusion, apparently to underscore his ar$ument that textual variants alterbasic doctrines.#?is initial discussion of this passa$e certainly leaves this impression as well.C"But if he does not mean this, then he is writin$ more provocatively than is necessary, misleadin$his readers. %nd if he does mean it, he has overstated his case.

What is not disputed is the wordin$ in the parallel in /ark 3.3!0But as for that day orhour no one knows itneither the an$els in heaven, nor the Sonexcept the Father.2CThus,there can be no doubt that 4esus spoke of his own prophetic i$norance in the livet Discourse.1onse=uently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here; ne simply cannot maintain that thewordin$ in /att !9.3C chan$es one(s basic theolo$ical convictions about 4esus since the samesentiment is found in /ark. Not once inMisquoting Jesusdoes 'hrman mention /ark 3.3!,even thou$h he explicitly discusses /att !9.3C at least six times, seemin$ly to the effect that thisreadin$ impacts our fundamental understandin$ of 4esus.C!But does the wordin$ chan$e ourbasic understandin$ ofMatthew-sview of 4esus; 'ven that is not the case. 'ven if /att !9.3Cori$inally lacked 0nor the 5on,2 the fact that the Father alone+`X]9;


16/22


17/22

4ohn C@L"@{ |} ~[9; ?@A;|S]_[. ?ere _ZU is functionin$ as a noun, even thou$hit is an adKective. %nd `U, the pronominal adKective, is the subKect related to _ZU, thepredicate nominative.

*om .3"@ ]ZZU 9@DEF9H;~_S]U I9KL>N@F;Zz[U, |^``]U [,V[`S_[ O9=9H;+0slanderers, haters o% 0od, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors ofevil, diso!edientto parents2true adKectives in italics-

al 3@@ ]=DEP Q?KR>+0with %braham, the believer2 as the N%5B has it< N*5H has0%braham who believed2< N7H has 0%braham, the man of faith2-. *e$ardless of how it istranslated, here is an adKective wed$ed between an article and a noun that is functionin$substantivally, in apposition to the noun.

'ph !@!"@ []UOK@UN=RV@F]K=DE@X YLD@X+01hrist 4esus himself bein$ the chiefcornerstone2-@ althou$h V[_U is an adKective, it seems to be functionin$substantivally here +thou$h it could possibly be a predicate adKective, 7 suppose, as apredicate $enitive-. >54 lists this as an adKective< >N lists it as a noun. 7t may thus besimilar to [V`[U in its development.

Tim @@ _ [U `]_, [_U { [X]]_U, S`S_ { ]ZU,ON@DV@=;{?9?ZA@=;,REK@A[R=;{LEK@A[R=;, [^[_U +law is not made fora ri$hteous man, but for those who are lawlessand re!ellious, for the ungodlyandsinners, for the unholyand+ro%ane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, formurderers MadKectives in italics-@ this text clearly shows that 'hrman has overstated his

The difficulty with this view is that there is nothin$ about the word [V`[U itself that su$$ests it. utside ofthe New Testament the term simply means 0one of a kind2 or 0uni=ue,2 and does so with reference any ran$e of animateor inanimate obKects. Therefore, recourse must be made to its usa$e within the New Testament. ?ere proponents of theview ar$ue that in situthe word implies 0sonship,2 for it always occurs +in the New Testament- either in explicit

conKunction with U or in a context where a U is named and then described as [V`[U +>uke @3:, 4ohn @9,?eb @L-. Nonetheless, as su$$estive as the ar$ument may appear, it contains the seeds of its own refutation@ if theword [V`[U is understood to mean 0a uni=ue son,2 one wonders why it is typically put in attribution to U, anattribution that then creates an unusual kind of redundancy +0the uni=ueEson son2-. iven the fact that neither theetymolo$y of the word nor its $eneral usa$e su$$ests any such meanin$, this solution seems to involve a case of special

pleadin$.

The problem with this assertion is threefold@ +- 7f in the three texts listed above [V`[U does, in fact, have both asubstantival force and involves the implication of sonship, then to ar$ue that this could be the case in 4ohn .: is not aninstance of special pleadin$ because there is already clear testimony within the NT of this force. +!- 'hrman(s ar$ument restson $oin$ outside of biblical reek for the normative meanin$ of a term that seemed to have special nuances within the Bible.But since in the NT +?eb .L-as well as patristic reek +see n. C!- and the > +cf. 4ud$ .39 where the adKective isused+riorto the noun that speaks of 4ephthah(s dau$hter< Tobit 3.# is similar< cf. also Tobit :.L-[V`[U often both

bears the connotation of Ason( +or child- andis used absolutely +i.e., substantivally-, to ar$ue for a secular force within theBible looks like special pleadin$. +3- To ar$ue that an implied lexical force becomes 0an unusual kind of redundancy2 whenthe implication is brou$ht out explicitly in the text re=uires much more nuancin$ before it can be applied as any kind ofnormative principle@ on its face, and in application to the case in hand, it strikes me as almost wildly untrue. 7n $rammar andlexeme, the NT is filled with examples in which the ebb and flow of implicit and explicit meanin$ intertwine with oneanother. To take but one example from the $rammatical side@ S_ `U is a $enerally hellenistic expression in whichthe increased redundancy +by the doublin$ of the preposition- $ets the point across. 7t is found over :" times in the NT, yet itdoes not mean 0comeEinto into28 \et, it means the same thin$ as _ U, a phrase that occurs over L" times in the NT.'n$lish examples readily come to mind as well@ 7n collo=uial speech, we often hear 0foot pedal2 +is there any other kind of

pedal besides one for the feet;-.



18/22

case, for `Z_U does not modifyX]Z_U but instead is substantival, as are the%i#eprevious descriptive terms.

)et @@ \A9E@H; RK9=i$ht of Bart 'hrman(s The ,rthodo$orru+tion o% S(ri+ture,2 Dallas 5eminary, !""".

CL% =uick look at >ampe(sPatristi( 0ree' "e$i(onalso reveals that the substantival function of this adKective wascommonplace@ ::, def. L, the term is used absolutely in a host of patristic writers.



19/22

is the interpretation that it was a modalistic readin$.C:But the basis for that is a $rammaticalassumption that we have demonstrated not to have wei$ht. 7n conclusion, both [V`[U Uand [V`[U `U fit comfortably within orthodoxy< no seismic theolo$ical shift occurs if onewere to pick one readin$ over the other. %lthou$h some modern translations have been persuadedby 'hrman(s ar$ument here +such as the ?15B-, the ar$ument is hardly airti$ht. When either

variant is examined carefully, both are seen to be within the realm of orthodox teachin$.5uffice it to say that if 0od2 is authentic here, it is hardly necessary to translate the phrase as

0the uni=ue od,2 as thou$h that mi$ht imply that 4esus alone is od. *ather, as the N'Trenders it +see also the N7H and N*5H-, 4ohn .: says, 0No one has ever seen od. The onlyone, himsel% 0od, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made od known.2

7n other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theolo$y of the NT isoverstated at best.COnfortunately, as careful a scholar as 'hrman is, his treatment of maKortheolo$ical chan$es in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms@ 'ither histextual decisions are wron$, or his interpretation is wron$. These criticisms were made of hisearlier work, ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture, whichMisquoting Jesushas drawn from

extensively. For example, ordon Fee said of this work that 0Munfortunately, 'hrman too oftenturns mere+ossi!ilityinto+ro!a!ility, and probability into (ertainty, where other e=ually viablereasons for corruption exist.2L"\et, the conclusions that 'hrman put forth in ,rthodo$orru+tion o% S(ri+tureare still offered inMisquoting Jesus without reco$nition of some of thesevere criticisms of his work the first $oEaround.LFor a book $eared toward a lay audience, onewould think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all thetheolo$ical wei$ht that he says is on the line. ne almost $ets the impression that he isencoura$in$ the 1hicken >ittles in the 1hristian community to panic at data that they are simplynot prepared to wrestle with. Time and time a$ain in the book, hi$hly char$ed statements are put

C:'hrman is not alto$ether clear in his ar$ument that mono$enh


20/22


21/22

understandin$ of. 7ndeed, even a$nostic teachers bear this responsibility. Onfortunately, theavera$e layperson will leaveMisquoting Jesuswith far $reater doubts about the wordin$ andteachin$s of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. % $ood teacher doesn(t holdback on tellin$ his students what(s what, but he also knows how to packa$e the material so theydon(t let emotion $et in the way of reason. The irony is thatMisquoting Jesusis supposed to be

all about reason and evidence, but it has been creatin$ as much panic and alarm as The Da >in(iode.7s that really the peda$o$ical effect 'hrman was seekin$; 7 have to assume that he knewwhat kind of a reaction he would $et from this book, for he does not chan$e the impression at allin his interviews. Bein$ provocative, even at the risk of bein$ misunderstood, seems to be moreimportant to him than bein$ honest even at the risk of bein$ borin$. But a $ood teacher does notcreate 1hicken >ittles.L9

5econd, what 7 tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth ratherthan protect their presuppositions. %nd they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distin$uishescore beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancyand verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines starts to erode, it creates adomino effect@ ne falls down, they all fall down. 7t strikes me that somethin$ like this may bewhat happened to Bart 'hrman. ?is testimony inMisquoting Jesusdiscussed inerrancy as theprime mover in his studies. But when a $lib comment from one of his conservative professors at)rinceton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant,'hrman(s faith be$an to crumble. ne domino crashed into another until eventually he became Aafairly happy a$nostic.( 7 may be wron$ about 'hrman(s own spiritual Kourney, but 7 have knowntoo many students who have $one in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload theircritical investi$ation of the text of the Bible with bibliolo$ical presuppositions often speak of aAslippery slope( on which all theolo$ical convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that ifinerrancy $oes, everythin$ else be$ins to erode. 7 would say rather that if inerrancy is elevated tothe status of a prime doctrine, that(s when one $ets on a slippery slope. But if a student views

doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupyin$ the center, then if the moreperipheral doctrines are challen$ed, this does not have a si$nificant impact on the core. 7n otherwords, the evan$elical community will continue to produce liberal scholars until we learn tonuance our faith commitments a bit more, until we learn to see 1hrist as the center of our livesand scripture as that which points to him. 7f our startin$ point is embracin$ propositional truthsabout the nature of scripture rather than personally embracin$ 4esus 1hrist as our >ord and Gin$,we(ll be on that slippery slope, and we(ll take a lot of folks down with us.

7 $rieve for what has happened to an ac=uaintance of mine, a man 7 have known and admiredand continue to admirefor over a =uarter of a century. 7t $ives me no Koy to put forth thisreview. But from where 7 sit, it seems that Bart(s black and white mentality as a fundamentalisthas hardly been affected as he slo$$ed throu$h the years and trials of life and learnin$, evenwhen he came out on the other side of the theolo$ical spectrum. ?e still sees thin$s withoutsufficient nuancin$, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his ownviews are ri$ht. Bart 'hrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics 7(ve ever

L9%lthou$h 'hrman(sMisquoting Jesusmay well be the first lay introduction to New Testament textualcriticism, in the sprin$ of !""C a second book that deals with these issues +and some others- is to be released. 5eeGomos&ewski, 5awyer, and Wallace,Rein#enting Jesus, for a more balanced treatment of the data.



22/22

Documents

Daniel Wallace'.pdf