|  | | | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
A thoughtful read Nov 21, 2009
I have long felt that the Bible, as interpreted today by many, may not have been what was originally intended. The author's scholarly and open approach to this topic brings a refreshing voice to religious dialogue. His many years of meticulous research is not intended to demean faith. Instead, he shows the faithful and doubters alike that there is so much more to the printed word and it still worth reading and study.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 The Word of God Shaped by Human Hands Nov 14, 2009
The deeply held view that the Bible is inerrant is a completely modern idea and not, in itself, a Biblical one at that. This view held by so many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians today actually developed less than a century ago in a set of conflicts in Christian circles in the United States.
Setting aside this view, Ehrman delves deep into the almost 2,000-year history of the literary documents we now call the New Testament and traces a compelling story of their corruption while walking the reader through a myriad of textual problems.
"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, but only the words copied by scribes--sometimes correctly but sometimes ... incorrectly?" This is the question Ehrman asks in the introduction to Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Harper Collins, 2005).
As Ehrman points out, we don't have the original writings of the New Testament, only copies of them--over 5,000 copies in Greek alone--which, until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, were entirely produced by hand. Most of these copies are centuries removed from the originals. All of these copies contain mistakes both great and small as scribes inadvertently or intentionally altered the texts. While the vast majority of these changes are insignificant, sometimes the meaning of a verse, a passage, or an entire book depends on which textual variants we read.
Misquoting Jesus is a fantastically entertaining book unmatched in the depth of its scope and the ease of its language. Ehrman has done what few scholars can--made the esoteric suitably presentable.
4 of 4 found the following review helpful:
 Chiasmus and Luke 22:43-44 Nov 06, 2009
One of Bart Erhman's major arguments in his book "Misquoting Jesus" is easily proven wrong. That argument is that the account of Christ's sweating blood (Luke 22:43-44) cannot be original to Luke. (139-144). (Quotation marks are used in this review where underlining or italics would otherwise be appropriate.)
Mr. Ehrman initially supports his argument by referring to chiasmus, an ancient form of poetry. Mr. Erhman argues that verses 43-44 "disrupt the structure of this passage in Luke, which is otherwise a chiasmus that focuses attention on Jesus's prayer for God's will to be done." (164). Because of this alleged disruption of the chiasmus, Mr. Erhman argues that the passage cannot be original to Luke's account.
For a scholar of Mr. Erhman's stature, he displays-in regard to chiasmus-an appalling lack of knowledge.
One of the indispensable scholarly works on chiasmus is a collection of essays titled, "Chiasmus in Antiquity," ed. John W. Welch, (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981). The extensive bibliography alone is worth buying the book. The book also includes a list of hundreds of examples of chiasmus in the Old and New Testaments, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic literature.
As abundantly revealed by several internationally-renowned scholars in Professor Welch's book, Mr. Ehrman's fundamental mistake is thinking that chiasmi only runs as follows: A, B, C/ C', B', A'. If that were true, then, yes, verses 43-44 could be seen as a disruption of the chiasmus found in Luke 22:40-46. But in point of fact the vast majority (hundreds, if not thousands) of ancient chiasmi run as follows: A, B, C -- D -- C', B', A', with the single element D being at the cross of the chiasmus (the word "chiasmus" being based on the Greek letter chi or X).
With this well-understood and indisputable fact about chiasmi in mind, verses 43-44 are not at all a disruption of Luke's chiasmus. In fact, the most anciently-consistent (and compelling) interpretation of the chiasmus keeps verses 43-44 exactly where they are: at the very cross, the very heart of Luke's chiasmus. Verses 43-44 emphasize-as all good ancient chiasmi do-the very point the ancient author poet wished to shout out. At the center of his chiasmus about prayer, Luke the Physician bears testimony of the terrible effects of the greatest prayer of all time, the Prayer of Prayers, when Christ suffers everything the Adversary can throw at Him, when Christ takes upon Himself the sins of all people in all the world. Luke's chiasmus mirrors and reveals in stunning poetry the reality of Christ's Passion in Gethsemane. At the cross of the chiasmus is the revelation of the ultimate crossroad where heaven and hell clash.
Mr. Erhman's argument that verses 43-44 "disrupt the structure" of Luke's account is simply inconsistent with how the vast majority of ancient chiasmi are in fact structured. Luke's chiasmus about prayer in verses 40-46 (including Christ's more earnest prayer and sweating blood) is beautifully and internally consistent and true to all that scholars know about ancient chiasmi.
Mr. Erhman further argues that these verses (Luke 22:43-44) must be a later scribal addition because "there is an inordinately high concentration of 'unusual' words and phrases in these verses" (words such as "agony," "sweat," and "drops") that occur nowhere else in Luke's writings. (140). Perhaps Luke uses these unusual words only in these verses because the verses portray a highly unusual event!
Luke's portrayal of this unique event, Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane, invites Christians to reconsider what constitutes the Passion of Christ. Traditionally, Christians look to Golgotha and the Cross when thinking of Christ's Passion. Luke asks us to include in Christ's Passion Gethsemane and the Prayer.
To this end, verses 43-44 do not reveal Christ's agony at His forthcoming death. No reading of these verses or any text in Luke, Mark, or elsewhere compel us to accept this highly subjective interpretation. There is another more perfectly consistent interpretation. Consider. As Mr. Erhman himself stresses, Luke emphasizes throughout his book that Christ was imperturbable, calm, in the face of death. That is exactly right. Christ is shown as imperturbable in the face of death. Given this fact and the internal consistency (on extensive ancient evidence) of Luke's Chiasmus, with its account of Christ's agony in prayer-it can be argued that Luke's and Mark's descriptions of Christ's agony, His depression, His heavyness in Gethsemane must have been intended by them to manifest something other than a fear of physical death.
What could they have intended? Could it be that the agony, depression, and heavyness were their expressed manifestations of a perfectly pure Being being stunned at the weight and torture of sin and evil being laid on His shoulders, crushing His spirit-just as the olives were crushed in the presses at Gethsemane? (Consider here the meaning of the word "Gethsemane"). In these most sacred of moments, the sins of all mankind began to press down upon Him. A pure Being like Christ would naturally be amazed and struck with heavyness and agony that culminated in blood being pressed from Him as the oil is pressed from the olives. It was in that sacred moment that Christ atoned for the sins of us all. Luke perfectly portrayed this moment in a formal, consistent, and beautiful chiasmus, using words never before used to describe a singular event never before (or since) experienced!
Mr. Erhman continues to argue (as if repetition will make his opinion true) that these "verses contain a theology completely unlike that otherwise found in Luke's Passion narrative." (164). Again, that theology, in Mr. Ehrman's opinion, is one of Christ's agony and fear in the face of death (22:43-44), this theology being unlike the theology of calmness and assurance in the face of death found elsewhere in Luke. In fact though, if one truly appreciates the theology of Gethsemane, one sees no contradiction at all. First, Christ was not in agony because of fear of death, but because of the sins of the world pressed in full measure upon Him. And second, once Christ experienced the infinitely terrible torture of his Passion experience in Gethsemane, the inevitability and necessity of the Passion experience at Golgotha, while terribly painful, would hold little fear: Christ had already conquered the worst. How could anyone discount the terrible pain of scourging and crucifixion and the unfathomable withdrawal of His Father's presence while on the Cross? It cannot be ventured. But Luke's consistent and beautiful testimony is that the deepest and most ultimate pain Christ suffered for us all was suffered in Gethsemane. Thus, Luke's account of Christ's subsequent calmness in the face of mere physical death are actually theologically consistent and authentic.
Before proceeding to confidently repeat his opinion as the de-facto correct one, Mr. Erhman admits that his version of events regarding verses 43-44 is highly disputed among scholars. (pgs 139-40). With appreciation for the scholarly mind, I respectfully suggest that if Mr. Erhman's arguments are the best that can be offered for his side of the story (arguments that ironically-for Mr. Erhman's thesis-seem to be largely based on his personal and subjective theology of the Passion), then I am surprised that any textual scholars agree with him. For me, a full appreciation of the ancient poetic form of chiasmus immediately and completely undermined Mr. Erhman's analysis of Luke 22:40-46 and actually convinced me on every intellectual ground that verses 43-44 are original to Luke, as so many scholars apparently hold.
Having said all that, I must say that Mr. Erhman's fundamental thesis is quite compelling. There have unquestionably been major changes to the original autographs (just not always the ones Mr. Ehrman thinks have been made). Some reflection on this last statement, I humbly confess, leads me to the ultimate conclusion: We all agree that the most ancient manuscripts of that time in our possession date a full lifetime after the apostles and original witnesses died. Therefore, without a major new revelation from God Himself, is it possible that the intentions, thinking, and theology of the original apostolic authors and disciples can ever indisputably be determined?
Perhaps Mr. Erhman's book proves one thing conclusively: To dispel these contentions, we need Help.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
Rewriting Faith Oct 31, 2009
The biggest problem with "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman is the title. While undoubtedly an attention grabber, this book is about the changes which were written into the New Testament, and not about people misquoting Jesus. When taking on a subject which is sure to be controversial, it is important for an author to establish his credentials. Dr. Ehrman does that quite well as he discusses his background of moving from someone who believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God, to a textual scholar who has spent a great deal of time looking at the differences between the sources we have for the New Testament books, an how they have changed through time.
Those who believe that the Bible is literal truth will probably not get anything out of this book, but everyone else will probably get something out of this logical look at the changes which occurred during the copying of the material through its earliest years. He starts by setting the baseline of what the status is of the texts we do have, and discusses how many years they are separated from the original texts as well as the likely existence of a Q document which is now lost.
The majority of this relatively short book (218 pages outside of the notes and index) is spent in looking at where changes are known to have taken place, and in attempting to determine what the original reading might have been, as well as looking at why and how the changes were made. While this certainly contains some controversial material, it is important to note that for the most part it is not in question that changes were made. There are clear differences between the textual sources, and not only between the Greek and Latin sources, but also within each language's sources as well. The part of this material where there is room for debate is in the area of which (if either) is the original reading, and the motivation behind the changes.
Dr. Ehrman is not attempting to create a sinister scenario where conspiracies to cover-up key information have resulted in wholesale changes to scripture. Instead he looks at the attempts by scribes to clarify confusing areas of the scripture, or allowing their personal reading of what passages meant to make subtle changes to make the reading more clear. He even sites an example where one scribe attempts to undo a change made by an earlier scribe, and who annotates his efforts with a note in the column. What he is suggesting, as he makes clear in his conclusion, is that what some of these scribes did is the same as what people do each time they read the texts, which is to assign our own beliefs as to what the meaning was. The key difference being that we don't rewrite the texts in our efforts today.
One last interesting point which he makes in his discussion is that this process of altering the words did not start with those who copied the texts, but was there with the original writers as well. He discusses what is believed to be the oldest Gospel (Mark), and the description of the behavior of Jesus and how it differs with the Gospel of Luke whose author supposedly used Mark as its source, clearly shows how the two authors focused on different aspects and appeared to witness different events. Clearly each author wanted to convey different aspects of the events described.
Some might find the brevity of this work to be a weakness, but I look upon it as a strength. Dr. Ehrman could have written a massive multi-volume work detailing changes in the texts and dictating how and why those changes were made, but I do not think that was his goal. Instead, he gives the reader a taste of some of the differences, and while he does provide his logical reasoning of what occurred to cause those changes, he does not insist that his view is the correct one. I suspect the next step for the reader would be to look at another textual scholar's interpretations and continue to learn about the subject with perhaps a slightly different viewpoint. It is unfortunate that Dr. Ehrman does not offer up a bibliography section; however one can find some suggestions when reading his notes.
It's got SOME up sides. Oct 29, 2009
Ehrman weaves complex arguments with simplistic evidence, leaving no doubt that further research is necessary, but maybe that's the point.
Aside from revealing his personal journey (read: struggle) with the Bible, the beginning is "Reading History 101," which could bore some readers. However, it is important in that it lays the base from which the rest of his thesis is built.
[...]
|
| |
|
![Up (4 Disc Combo Pack with Digital Copy and DVD) [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51V%2Beipy8-L._SL75_.jpg "Up (4 Disc Combo Pack with Digital Copy and DVD) [Blu-ray]")
![Across the Universe [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T24FuHPEL._SL75_.jpg "Across the Universe [Blu-ray]")
![Underworld Trilogy (Underworld / Underworld: Evolution / Underworld: Rise of the Lycans) [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F27VzUl%2BL._SL75_.jpg "Underworld Trilogy (Underworld / Underworld: Evolution / Underworld: Rise of the Lycans) [Blu-ray]")
![Shakira: Oral Fixation Tour [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RQUEopdlL._SL75_.jpg "Shakira: Oral Fixation Tour [Blu-ray]")
