Evidence for God from Science

This is a book review I posted on Amazon a few weeks back. It's been received pretty well, even by non-Christians. Feel free to interact with me on it if you like.

Bart (not Ehrman!)

_____________________________________________________

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 relevant 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 perspectives.

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.

Outstanding review . . . you've sold me. I'm going to get the book!

I've not read any of his works yet, but as his name has come up several times in my studies, he's been on my reading list for some time. What would ou recommend in conjuction (if anything) with this particular book?

Also, oOff topic, but what did your thesis on GoT lead you to conclude?

Thanks Jac.

I did put up a post on the Gospel of Thomas on another thread that gives my thoughts. In general, the G of T generated a lot of excitement early on because there were those who hoped it represented the Q document that has been imagined to exist and provide the quotes of Christ to the Gospel Writers.

I don't think it fits the bill but I understand why it was hoped that it might.

While there may be a "Q" document out there, I don't think there has to be. Matthew was a disciple and had his own memories to draw from as well as contact with the other apostles. Mark and Luke both had apostolic contacts and there was a strong enough oral tradition of Christ's sayings that, that oral tradition provides ample explanation without it having to be written down. Sometimes textual criticism tends to become self-perpetuating by assuming that all explanations have to have written souces. That just isn't always necessarily so.

The G of T was found in a gnostic library which taints it but doesn't necessarily make it gnostic. When you look at the logia however and evaluate those sayings of Christ in the GofT that have been modified when compared to the synoptic gospels, it becomes fairly clear that what it is, is a group of wisdom sayings, attributed to Christ for Gnostic purposes and changed to match those purposes where needed. There's not enough there to demonstrate a separate textual tradition let alone it being the Q document. Add to that the fact that they're preserved in Coptic Egyptian and what you have there is at best a translation from koine Greek and the value slips even more.

My studies were back in the early 80's and I've not kept up with it. The GofT has gotten more attention since then because Gnosticism is seeing a bit of a "revival" in new age type writings. Paige Engels is a leading gnostic proponent. In addition, Bart Ehrman who wrote the "Misquoting Jesus" book I reviewed apparently has books out that include the GofT as a point of interest.

In terms of other books to read as a parallel with Ehrman, I'd suggest looking for works on the NT by FF Bruce and Gordon Fee. Old Testament Scholar Walt Kaiser has some good material too. These are reformed scholars and while I am not completely reformed in my beliefs I've found them to be good authors in this field who hold a high view of Scripture but face the issues that are in the field with intellectual integrity.

Hope that helps and thanks for the kind words.

Bart

Canuckster1127,

Thank you for your review of Bart Ehrman's, "Misquoting Jesus." I have quite a few of Ehrman's books, including this one.

I enjoyed reading Ehrman's background. I think for someone who seems to have thought that the New Testament came down on a string directly from God only to find out that human hands were involved and that these human hands tampered with the text in some areas must have put him into a tizzy. His faith was affected by his knowledge and he hasn't gotten over it.

On the other hand Bruce Metzger has the same credentials and his faith was strengthened by his knowledge.

Sometime ago I read an article published by a Mormon who quoted some of Erhman's findings. I emailed Erhman in order to find out if he was misquoted. He was not.

Bart told me that Bruce Metzger was an excellent example that this information does not have to affect one's faith.

In case anyone is interested in some additional reviews of this book, I suggest the following:

JP Holding of Tektonics:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

Evangelical Textual Criticism, This is a forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.

You will find many scholarly reviews on this site.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... us_31.html

and,

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

Lastly, Mr. Ehrman is quoted in a Tektonic article regarding his book, "Lost Christianities."

Relevant clip:

And now to the case presented by Bart Ehrman, which I feel warrants special attention. The basis of Ehrman's case - and it is a very good one - is that certain verses of the NT were altered in the second and third century, albeit with good intentions, to deflect heretics from foisting an unorthodox interpretation upon them. It is this sort of finding that leads some Skeptics (and even some Mormon critics) to claim that the NT cannot be classed with secular works in terms of textual reliability, because there was clearly so much textual infighting that would not occur over a secular work.

Generally there is little to find at fault with Ehrman's work. Many of his claims of intentional change are good; some require rather strained explanations or else plumb the depths of paranoia (as opposed to a much simpler idea that a change was the result of an accident). However, various critics have taken his material and run with it as though it renders the whole of the NT suspect; Ehrman himself draws far more cautious conclusions, and does not here make any argument for any theological view as correct, after the manner of Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels (though we will see if he does so in a newer book now out, Lost Christianities). Indeed, in an email to a reader of ours who requested clarification, Ehrman (who gave permission to use this quote) said:

" I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world."

Thus one should be cautious of those who abuse Ehrman's conclusions. But let's begin with a summation of what Orthodox Corruption presents.

******
You can read the rest of the portion of the article on Ehrman here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

I think that any Christian who has done their homework on the reliability of the New Testament will not find any surprises in Ehrman's book. Those who are unconcerned with the reliability of the NT will probably not read the book in the first place.

I did find the first few chapters fascinating--how scholars determine what was originally written.

I knew that Mr. Ehrman was writing this book long before it was published and was waiting for it.

My first thought after reading the book was that the Muslims are going to have a field day quoting it because they always have claimed that the Bible has been tampered with.

However, unfortuately for their case, the Bible that was in existance at the advent of Islam is the same one we have today and that which the Qur'an commends, including all the "misquotes" of Jesus.

Thanks for the follow-up. It helps to increase my understanding which was based only on this one book. It seems there are others with a broader scope of reading his works who have concluded much the same.

Higher criticism is a very hard test for many. There are times I (almost) wish I didn't know as much as I do because it makes interpreting and understanding the Bible that much more difficult. I remember when I told someone on my Church as a teenager I was going to college and going to study Biblical Literature, their response was that that was a very dangerous thing.

I think evangelicals are really just beginning to come out of their sheltered cloisters and to interact again with the culture and education of this world. In the US anyway, there seems to have been a retreat behind our walls and a fear of anything that challenges our faith and beliefs. I've looked through the New Testament, and I can't find that taught or modeled. I see Paul in the marketplace. I see Peter and John at the gates of the city.

There is a risk to higher knowledge and Biblical Criticism is a place where the tools have been picked up by skeptics, atheists and others with their agendas to in turn attack the bible. The problem is not found in the tools. It is found in the hands and manipulation of those holding the tools.

There are many like Ehrman who have succumbed to academic pressure, their own doubts etc. I see the parable of the sower at work here. But obviously only God knows the heart.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll read the links and digest what is there.

Bart (not Ehrman!)

Canuckster1127,

Mr. Ehrman told me that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but he also said that if all knowledge comes from God then we have nothing to fear.

My minister told me that nothing tests faith like the first year in seminary.

Those on this site--the Moderators--those who answer questions coming from Christians--must get their answers ready.

I feel that Christianity is being tested--if that is the right word--from all sides--from so-called Christian scholars who have lost their faith or who have had their faith seriously damaged as Ehrman has; not to mention those of the Jesus Seminar.

I once had a Muslim tell me that Islam did not have to destroy Christianity; that Christian "scholars" were doing it for them. I have never forgotten that comment.

If we Christians believe in Satan or evil or whatever you call it, then we can be assured that Satan is live and well in the world today. We must have our answers ready in order to defeat this evil that is among us. In other words, we must preach the Gospel of Jesus to all who have ears.

Haven't read the book, but here are some reviews that may help. (My guess is that it is more of the recycled “Jesus Seminar” stuff.)

Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away”.

http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Misquoting.html

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... us_31.html

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

puritan lad wrote:Haven't read the book, but here are some reviews that may help. (My guess is that it is more of the recycled “Jesus Seminar” stuff.)

Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away”.

http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Misquoting.html

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... us_31.html

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

Good ones. I actually e-mailed back and forth a bit with Dan Wallace on the book. He's a sharp guy.