Whose Word is it?: The Story Behind Who Changed The New Testament and Why Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I should declare an interest as a militant atheist but having said that, the author of this book certainly started off as a devout christian. This therefore is no Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris-type rant but rather a well laid out historical account of how the new testament came to take its present form.
Haven't you ever wondered how you could be sure that the NT was an accurate history of anything given how many times it must have been copied - by hand, remember - and also translated from one language to another to another to another.... etc etc. Most of us after all will be reading it in translation into languages that effectively didn't even exist at the time e.g. English.
Ehrmann shows well how the texts have been altered over time, sometimes accidentally and often quite intentionally in some quite substantial ways to present a particular picture of jesus and his beliefs.
It would appear arguments began to rage very soon after the death of jesus even about who he was - was he entirely divine, was he entirely human, was he both - and also about the "true" meaning of his teachings so that the texts of the gospels began to change to reflect an emerging orthodoxy and to counter opposing views of which there seem to have been several.
I came away from this book even more strongly of the view that as an accurate history of jesus, his family and companions, and his beliefs and teachings, the new testament is absolutely worthless. We have absolutely no way now of knowing who this man really was - leaving aside the vexed question of whether he even existed , at least as the person most christians imagine him to have been - nor what his teachings were.
The new testament simply represents the outcome of what might best be seen as propaganda wars in which various factions sought to have their version of history prevail over the others.
I strongly recommend this book to believers and non-believers alike.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Whose Word is it: The Story Behind Who Changed The New Testament and Why

With the advent of the printing press and the subsequent publishing culture that reproduces exact copies of texts en masse, most people who read the Bible today assume that they are reading the very words that Jesus spoke or St. Paul wrote. And yet, for almost 1, 500 years manuscripts were copied by hand by scribes many of them untrained, especially in the early centuries of Christendom who were deeply influenced by the theological and political disputes of their day. Mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions that continue to plague biblical scholars who determine which words, phrases, or stories are the most reliable and, therefore, merit publication in modern Bibles. Whose Word Is It? is the fascinating history of the words themselves. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman shows us where and why changes were made in our earliest surviving manuscripts, changes that continue to have a dramatic impact on widely-held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself. Many books have been written about why some books made it into the New Testament and why - others didn't (canonization) or about how the meaning of words change when translated from Aramaic to Greek to English. But this is the first time that a leading biblical scholar reveals for the general reader the many challenging even disturbing early variations of our cherished biblical stories and why only certain versions of those stories qualify for publication in the Bibles we read today.

Click here for more information about Whose Word is it: The Story Behind Who Changed The New Testament and Why

Read More...

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I suppose it had to be done. It seems that Professor Ehrman has reached those rarified literary heights previously attained by Celsus, Porphyry and Julian in that apologists feel the need to refute him. For this, kudos are due Professor Ehrman. However, no such congratulations are due Timothy Paul Jones, the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Rolling Hills, Tulsa, Oklahoma. While Professor Ehrman writes in a very scholarly fashion, exposing for the public what scholars have known for years about the myths that surround early Christianity's beginnings, Pastor Jones's book is merely an effort to minimalize the damage. As with any apologetic work, its aim is to assure the flock that there is really nothing to worry about.
Written in a very readable, conversational style, Jones still fails in his main effort, which is to prove Bart Ehrman wrong. In that sense, it is a typical apologetic. Yes, there are differences in the various New Testament manuscripts, we are told, but they don't really matter. The conflicting accounts in the four Gospels are not competing, Jones assures us, but somehow complimentary. The differences, he says, are trivial, without ever really explaining how this can be.
Efforts to prove that the Gospels were really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are unconvincing. Jones cites Colossians as saying that Luke is Paul's "beloved physician" but Colossians is one of those Pauline letters not really written by Paul. So the testimony of a forger is made to assure us of the veracity of Luke's account. And that is entirely leaving aside the problem that if Luke was Paul's traveling companion, why is it that Luke is so at odds with Paul's own account of his mission? Shouldn't Acts of the Apostles agree with the Pauline epistles, and not contradict them?
He excuses one of the most blatant bits of editing ever done to a manscript, and that is the longer ending of Mark, which originally ended at 16:8. Jones assures us that nothing has been changed by the addition, which even he admits is not original to Mark. Yet here we see proof of the charges made by Celsus in the late second century that Christians changed their texts to suit their changing needs, a charge earlier denied by Jones. And I think Jones misses the greater point here, and that is, if Christian copyists felt free to change even the words of books they felt to be sacred, how secure should people feel with the rest of the books that have passed through their hands. What other changes might have been made, what other passages invented? And if they would change even the Bible, why should we believe that the much vaunted "evidence" for Christianity provided by Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus is not also the product of wishful and inventive Christian editing?
For centuries the faithful were assured, "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" and that there were no mistakes and contradictions in the New Testament. It was perfect, people were told. Now scholars have proven that it is not perfect and the response seems to be, "Well, OK, it isn't perfect but none of those mistakes and contradictions really mean anything." And inerrancy, Jones assures us, "can include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict." Of course, the New Testament is full of contradictions, but Jones refuses to see these as such.
Against the actual evidence provided by Ehrman, Jones falls back on what early Christians told the Pagan critic Celsus: "Do not ask questions; just believe." He provides no real compelling evidence that fellows named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the books that bear their names. Instead of arguments anchored in scholarship, he provides us with the following: "Historical evidence (which he fails to provide) also compels me to think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the sources of the books that bear their names. So, whenever I open my New Testament to the Gospels, I read these documents with a clear conscience as the words of these four witnesses."
That's nice, Pastor Jones, but we need more than your assurances that these books were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Completely neglected here is the fact that none of these books bore these names when they were written. The names were assigned later. None of these books were cited by early Christian authors until a good century after they were supposedly written. Despite all the evidence we have that these books were NOT written by the men whose names they bear, Professor Jones wants us to take it on faith that they were. Why? Because he believes it.
In the end, Jones has done nothing in this book to refute Bart Ehrman except to say that none of what Bart Ehrman tells us is true because, in the end, he doesn't want it to be true. Against scholarship, Jones offers faith, and in the final analysis, each reader will have to decide what is more important to him, because they are often mutually incompatible.
I think that this remark of Jones really says it all: "I know nothing about warp drives except what I've learned from Star Wars." But warp drives aren't from Star Wars, Pastor Jones. They are from Star Trek.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

"What good does it do to say that the words [of the Bible] are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language? . . . How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired? . . . We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals."So contends Bart D. Ehrman in his bestselling Misquoting Jesus. If altogether true, we have little reason to put our confidence in Scripture. Add to this Ehrman's contention that what we read in the New Testament represents the winners' version of events, twisted to suit their own purposes and not at all a faithful recounting of what really happened, and the case for skepticism and unbelief gives every appearance of being on solid footing. But are things really so bad off? Were the New Testament documents widely distorted by copyists? Can we in fact have no idea what was in the originals? Do we have no hope of knowing what eyewitnesses said and thought? Are other documents left out of the New Testament better sources for understanding early Christianity? While readily conceding that Ehrman has many of his facts straight, pastor and researcher Timothy Paul Jones argues that Ehrman is far too quick to jump to false and unnecessary conclusions.In clear, straightforward prose, Jones explores and explains the ins and outs of copying the New Testament, why lost Christianities were lost, and why the Christian message still rings true today.

Get 34% OFF

Click here for more information about Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

Read More...

Reinventing Jesus Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)In some ways the title is unfortunate, because Reinventing Jesus is so much more than another response to The Da Vinci Code (as good as some of those are). What this book provides is excellent scholarship on a number of issues that have been inadequately addressed, if addressed at all, by traditional apologists. The authors have actually lowered themselves to address arguments and theories that academics rarely encounter in scholarly circles. As noted in Reinventing Jesus, much of said sludge has flowed forth as a result of -- in the author's words -- "ready access to unfiltered information via the Internet and the influential power of this medium. The result is junk food for the mind--a pseudointellectual meal that is as easy to swallow as it is devoid of substance." Id. at 221-22. In response, Reinventing Jesus provides rebuttals to arguments propounded by the likes of Internet Infidels, Robert M. Price, and even, yes, Earl Doherty (though not yet his Jesus Myth stuff).
In my opinion, the best part of the book is a superb discussion of the textual transmission of the New Testament. There is the usual stuff we see from apologists like Josh McDowell about the wealth of manuscript evidence comparative to other ancient writings, but there is a lot more. Reinventing Jesus breaks down the information into greater detail, explaining the manuscript evidence more deeply, the nature of the disagreements in the traditions, the types of traditions and their origins. The result is a powerful case for accuracy of our modern translations. All this is written for the layperson, but the authors apparently believe that the layperson can handle a lot more (intellectually and spiritually) than is typically assumed. This targeting of the well-informed layperson is a hallmark of the entire book, resulting in more information and deeper analysis than the typical apologetic provides.
The discussion of the origins of the NT Canon is also excellent, once again giving layreaders more information than they may be expecting. Reinventing Jesus goes through the criteria by which the books of the NT were chosen and is candid about which books were quickly accepted as well as those which where not. The authors also discuss those who made the decisions and when the decisions were made. Special attention is given to the last books to be accepted. In this section, as well as throughout the book, the authors attempt to come up with examples and metaphors from sports, work, pop culture, or everyday life. Most of these examples are well made and a feature employed throughout the book.
Another very effective set of chapters addresses what the authors call "Parallelomania." Here the authors take on an argument that even many of the online-skeptics have abandoned; namely that Christianity was merely a myth based on pre-existing pagan myths. It is good that they do such an excellent job of debunking all of the supposed "parallels" because too many of the underinformed on the internet are still being taken in. Reinventing Jesus is successful in showing that the core doctrines of Christianity originated out of Judaism and the events in the life of Jesus and his apostles. The supposed "parallels" between Christianity and the pagan religions are either based on word games (describing very different beliefs as if they were the same), misunderstandings of the evidence, are the result of pagan copying of the more successful Christian belief system, or are the result of some Christian copying of pagan beliefs in the third and fourth centuries (after the core NT beliefs were already well-established). There are several online responses to parallelomania, but this chapter exceeds most of them in its breadth, depth, and readability.
The chapter on the Council of Nicea is quite good. There are also chapters about the accuracy of the NT, oral tradition, and authorship of NT documents that are solid discussions, though not the best available. Still, they add to the value of the book and fill out the complete picture that the authors are trying to impart.
As for other features, there is a helpful list of Suggested Reading for each part of the book, as well as a scripture index and subject index. My only real complaint about the book is that it uses book endnotes, rather than footnotes or chapter endnotes.
On a whole, Reinventing Jesus would be an excellent addition to any apologist's or pastor's library. In fact, it is so effective and readable, it would be a good buy for any Christian wanting to better understand the history of their faith (as all should). It is a big step above Josh McDowell's helpful though basic historical apologetic books. It effectively engages some of the most recent skeptical arguments that having been spreading with the help of the internet. Finally, it trusts laypersons to sort through the good and the bad in the historical evidence while maintaining a very readable presentation.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Reinventing Jesus

Reinventing Jesus cuts through the rhetoric of extreme doubt to reveal the profound credibility of historic Christianity. Meticulously researched yet eminently readable, this book invites a wide audience to take a firsthand look at the primary evidence for Christianity's origins. (20070201)

Get 32% OFF

Click here for more information about Reinventing Jesus

Read More...

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)In today's society, there appears to be only one unassailable absolute truth--there is no absolute truth. Further, the quickest way to be labeled hateful, intolerant, or mean spirited is to suggest that the gospel as revealed in scripture is true and is the exclusive way to God. It used to be that those who would label you hateful or mean spirited for saying that were those outside of the church. That is no longer the case, however, and in fact it is among those who profess Christ that you are likely to find the loudest, most shrill voices railing against the notion of absolute truth. Many of those who advocate accepting any and all beliefs as being equally Christian base their position on the works of German theologian Walter Bauer and a contemporary disciple of his, Bart Ehrman. In short, Bauer, and now Ehrman, propose that what we know today as Christianity is not the Christianity of the apostles and certainly not what Jesus taught. Rather, they propose, there was a diverse opinion about Jesus, what He taught, and what the apostles taught and that there was no one view that was more "right" than any of the others. The fact that we today believe that there is only one correct theological position on, for instance, the Virgin Birth is because the Roman church finally won enough theological and political power to squash any theological opposition to their positions. In fact, they assert, what we know today as orthodox Christianity represents the view of the winning side rather than the truth of the gospel.
The book The Heresy of Orthodoxy was not written to refute this Bauer-Ehrman thesis. Rather, as the authors' state, the purpose of the book is to determine "why the Bauer-Ehrman thesis commands paradigmatic stature when it has been soundly discredited in the past". As such, the authors' review three areas where this idea of multiple but equally valid "Christianities" has been thoroughly refuted in the three sections of the book. They first examine whether, as the Bauer-Ehrman thesis suggests, there were actually a wide array of theological beliefs in the early church and that heresy (diversity) actually preceded orthodoxy. Further, they review material related to the development of the New Testament canon and attempt to determine from the historical evidence if the 27 books we know as the New Testament are more the result of random chance ("some books have all the luck"), as Bauer and Ehrman, would have us believe rather than there being something peculiar about these books that makes them Scripture. Finally, they evaluate the assertion made by Bauer and Ehrman that the New Testament Text is so riddled with errors and inconsistencies that it is virtually unreliable as a record of what Jesus and the apostles taught.
Through the 8 chapters, the authors Kostenberger and Kruger deliver a slam dunk in their presentation. They take the thesis that there were no absolute truths in the early church and we certainly have no way to know exactly what they believed anyway and clearly present convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, as the reader discovers, the evidence for what we know today as orthodox Christianity is overwhelming and that the thesis presented by Bauer-Ehrman ignores significant historical and textual evidence that discredits their position in addition to engaging in occasional circular reasoning. In short, the book would encourage any Christian to have confidence that their faith is in fact "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. (Jude 1:3-NASB)".
I would recommend this book for all Christians who are interested in a better understanding of their faith or who are looking to better educate themselves in issues related to apologetics. The work is a scholarly text and as such is not a "casual read". I could see this being used in a college or seminary classroom. If you're looking for a resource to gain a better understanding of issues related to postmodernism and its effect on Christianity, this would be a great book to add to your library.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity

Get 36% OFF

Click here for more information about The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity

Read More...

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)This is the first book of Ehrman's I have read. I found it interesting and well-written for the average person who has little background in Biblical Textual Studies, (which equates to more than 99% of the population.)
I do not have the credentials of Dr. Ehrman, but I do have the equivalent of a degree in Biblical Literature and have worked in the original languages. My Senior Thesis was doing a textual comparison of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi with the parallel passages of the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13. To do that I had to teach myself some Coptic Egyptian and do some translating to form a basis for comparison.
All that said to establish that I have some background to make an evaluation of what is being said in this book.
I also have some common ground with Dr. Ehrman in life history. I too was trained as an evangelical with a very high view of inspiration and further had to struggle as I became aware of how difficult it is to interact with the text in its manuscript and historical form all while becoming painfully aware of the fact that any view of inspiration must tacitly admit that it is a hypothetical basis of faith because as Ehrman states clearly:
1. If the original manuscripts are inspired, we don't have them.
2. What we do have, while overall reliable and fairly easily examined for error, still leaves some serious questions of textual manipulation by scribes that makes several key passages difficult to stand upon for important doctrines.
This is, in fact, not as great a secret as Ehrman seems to imply throughout his book. There are a great number of books from all backgrounds and degrees of belief that acknowledge these types of issues. Granted, they tend to be more of an academic nature than what Ehrman has attempted to do here. But they are there nonetheless and have been for centuries.
Jefferson's Bible was an early example (though not necessarily intended for distribution at the time) of how people wrestled with this issue. The means of wrestling with them have improved with additional manuscripts discovered (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi to name the better known ones.) Scholarship has improved to where I believe it is safe to say that what we know in this realm today has improved our confidence in most areas of the text.
In fact, the newer translations themselves (The NIV, the NASB etc.), actually have margin notes and some variant readings noted very clearly in just the areas that Ehrman focuses on within his book. That hardly equates to a "cover-up."
In view of this, I think Ehrman somewhat oversteps his points in favor of salesmanship to try and press home his own doubts that have arisen in his personal journey. Most Christians have many tools, books, websites, and Bibles themselves to be introduced to these types of issues (IF they want to be.) This is an issue well within the grasp of the average layman if they should be interested in pursuing it.
There are many conservative scholars with equally distinguished academic backgrounds that match Ehrman's and yet still maintain a higher view of Scripture than he appears to have adopted. I accept that his views are well informed and sincere. I do not accept his conclusion that inspiration of the original text requires equally divine preservation. However, in recognizing that I accept that the onus is on those of my persuasion to provide solid scholarship to demonstrate our case. I believe that is being provided. I would encourage any reading this book to listen to what Ehrman has to say and do some research on what others of a more conservative approach and respect for Scripture have to say as well. In this regard, even Bruce Metzger, Ehrman's mentor to whom he dedicates the book has a somewhat more conservative view and conclusion based on the same criteria.
The primary and most valuable point that I think Ehrman makes in this work, is that there are many Christians in denial either through ignorance or worse, perhaps an unwillingness to face these issues for fear of upsetting their internal house of cards and being forced to admit that there are unanswered questions and room for some intellectual honesty and humility in facing difficult issues related to the Bible.
There are many Christians, unfortunately who prefer denial to honest appraisal. Ehrman very rightly confronts this with his material.
As an evangelical who has retained and maintained his faith in this journey, I haven't found it necessary to resort to denial. There are satisfactory answers to be found. It does, however, require a willingness to adopt some humility and to honestly rethink and modify positions when the facts call for it. That is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing and results in a deeper, more understanding, more relevent and intellectually honest faith that can move and interact within our society and culture without apology. I don't believe God intends for his people to be mental midgets or follow their faith mindlessly.
That having been said, I didn't find the text offensive or threatening for that matter. I think he does a good job of raising the points on the major issues without overly sensationalizing them beyond what I have qualified above. His facts are reasonably sound and accurate, even if they are somewhat selective. His conclusions in places seem to be somewhat hastily arrived at, but I'm willing to give him some latitude due to his goal of making this easily grasped by the average person with no formal training.
Worth the read. Hopefully any reading this as an introduction to the field will not stop here but go on to explore and learn more. Metzger is good, Gordon Fee is good. FF Bruce also has some good material, but there are many others if you want to enter the field more deeply and see some differing persepctives.
Evangelicals, (such as myself) need to read and interact with these types of books and enter the field as participants in the debate rather than naysayers throwing verbal salvos from behind our walls of faith, security and (unfortunately at times) ignorance.
Read it and be introduced into an important field of knowledge.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)

Get 32% OFF

Click here for more information about Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)

Read More...