Dr. Ehrman's "Problem" Verse

by hmike 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Sad emo

  Interesting thread hmike, I shall be following even if I'm not able to take further part. For now, I'm short on 'serious thinking' time so for a start at least, here are some non-intellectual thoughts of mine:

  Why, if God didn't 'protect' the Scriptures, should that mean he doesn't exist? 'Protection' to me doesn't necessarily mean maintaining a status quo. Perhaps God has allowed that leeway - I'd suggest maybe to encourage his followers not to take the Scriptures too seriously/literally. As many of us here know, if you take the Bible literally, you quickly tie yourself in knots trying to explain the contradictions! Yet if believers came to realise and accept that there are scribal errors etc, it wouldn't be such a big deal to them to try and protect the Bible from 'attack'.

  For the believer then, I guess the dilemma is what to do with the problem verses - ignore them and hope they go away is probably the most likely response I'd see from many of the folks I know. Sad really, no wonder groups like the JWs can come along and use 'regular Christians' for target practice - a lot of us don't actually know how to explain what we believe!
• 

  snowbird

  I think this is interesting. At least it give a different way of looking at things.

  AboutBibleProphecy.com

  Did Jesus name wrong man? When he said Abiathar, didn't he mean Ahimelech?

  Question: Jesus names the wrong man?
  Mark 2:23-26 Jesus says Abiathar was the high priest and David was NOT alone.
  1 Samuel 21:1-6 states that David met Ahimelech and David was ALONE.
  
  Response: Actually both men were alive at that time. Abiathar was Ahimelech's son. Abiathar became the high priest after his father. Mark 2:23-26 is saying that this event in which David entered the House of God happened during the time of Abiathar, and that is correct. It did happen during the time of Abiathar. However, Abiathar was not yet the high priest. But the passage isn't necessarily claiming that he was the high priest at that point. Instead, the verse is identifying Abiathar as high priest, which is true, and it is saying that the event took place during Abiathar's time, which is also true. Imagine if someone said, "I knew President Bush when he was a student at Yale..." That person of course would not be claiming that Bush was actually president while still a student at Yale. No, he would only be identifying Bush as president and as a student at Yale. Nothing more, nothing less.
  
  So why would Mark 2:23-26 speak of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech? Perhaps because Abiathar was better known. Abiathar shared a lot of adventures with David. The two are linked together in several Biblical accounts. And it is quite possible that many of the Rabbis during the time of Jesus held the memory of Abiathar in high regard, and Jesus would have known that.
  
  As for the issue of whether David was alone - Mark 2:23-26 does NOT say that David's men entered the House of God with David. It only says that David himself entered. And it explains why he entered - because he and his men were hungry. But it never says anything about his men entering the House of God. It only says that David entered the House of God and got the bread, which he presumably later gave to his men. There is no conflict there.

  ******************************************************

  Sylvia
• 

  hmike

  even some manuscripts of Mark 2:26 (D and W) do the same thing, while many others (A, C, etc.) insert the article before "high priest," allowing for a looser interpretation ("in the days of Abiathar the high priest" instead of "when Abiathar was the high priest").

  Narkissos,

  Looks like you're saying that there were indeed attempts to correct this problem. Or, is it possible that an error was created by a copyist? I don't think that was considered by Ehrman, which should have been. In any case, it's interesting to me that those who selected the Greek manuscript as the text to translate from would use a "problem" text when a "better" alternative was available.

  Would you mind commenting on the article presented by snowbird? Is that explanation about the high priest possible based on the available texts?
• 

  hmike

  Jeff,

  Thanks for your interest and comments.

  I might have to reread the book again, but if memory serves, Ehrman makes the point that these books themselves were floating around for centruies. Often, Christian groups with their own take on Jesus (such as the Gnostics) took the scrolls in circulation and used them to prop up their own unique Christian tradition and teachings. The Gnostics obviously lost. It seemed to me that Ehrmans point was that the early churches and councils weren't selective at all and used the now canonical books not for religious reasons but for political consolidation of power. Discrepencies were allowed to stand because the purity of the text as they had it wasn't their number one priority, or even number two. It was all about their power while quashing dissident view of other Christian and pagan sects.

  "...Centuries" would be a slight exaggeration. Most of the books eventually included in the canon were generally accepted among churches by something like AD 200. These books seemed to have survived on their own merits with churches and their leaders, while others which were not included had limited acceptance.

  About the books of the canon being decided as the result of a power struggle with the victors getting to choose: while we like to respect everyone's point of view, what if clear direction is needed and choices have to be made as to a course of action that some will like and others will not? Sometimes, "might makes right," but sometimes "right makes might." If there is a God, why wouldn't he empower those who succeeded?

  Is it possible is always an interesting question, but it isn't always a very pragmatic point of view. First of all, their were serious disagreements for hundreds of years after Jesus and his apostles died among the breakaway sects. That in itself hints at if not outrightly points to them noting problems in translation and especially interpretation. As for the standards of scholars today, they have no agenda. Do you think they should keep silent if they note that Mark got the wrong source text for his gospel? That isn't a "standard". Thats just factual evidence. As far as what we should require of the texts, we should require for the burden these "holy" books put on man that they be accurate and factual, and free of myth, legend and superstition. That seems fair to me.

  I disagree with you here friend. The conclusions as the accuracy of these texts are in legitmate question, and rightfully so. I can't help but note the thiestic slant to your framing of this question. Certainly we have complete evidence that god (if he exists) didn't protect these scrolls. So the only thiestic argument left is to suggest that they still represent gods thoughts. But as Ehrman presents through evidence and facts, there is 100% evidence that men with religious and political agendas were 100% responsible for what was in the now canonical bible and 0% evidence that god did much of anything in making sure the "bible" was written and inspired for us today. There is way to much in the way of mental gymnastics to do to come to that conclusion.

  When I said "Is it possible...?" I wanted to suggest other possibilities. I'm suggesting that how we evaluate these texts now, and what we expect of them, is different now in recent history than in ancient times. These texts were written by people to people in a different time and culture than ours. Is it fair to apply OUR standards to their works?

  There is no question that there were changes. The question is, what do we do with that? Do we have to conclude that this is evidence that God doesn't exist and automatically throw him out of the picture? Well, it depends on what we expect of God. If we demand that God verbally dictated the words as one would to a scribe, and that he would actively prevent any and all tampering through history, then we would have a problem. But is that what we see? What we see are texts written in different styles, with different levels of quality to the writing, and we see clear evidence of changes. What about a God who impressed on the writers what to include, and the writers did that with what they had available. Of course, in this picture, God would choose specific people who had access to what he wanted to include, and he could arrange to make necessary information available. We don't have a clear, consistent definition of what "inspiration" is, so I suggest we be careful about what we expect. Subsequently, although copyists made changes, they didn't have a significant effect. I'd like to suggest that when God worked through imperfect, fallible people, it would be a miracle that the texts remained intact as well as they have.

  When we second-guess about why God didn't do a better job, we can end up asking questions like, "Why did God even rely on men and writing? Why didn't he just leave angels around to tell us?"

  Apparently, Dr. Ehrman had to take an "all-or-nothing" approach. The rigid training he had in his early years of study couldn't accomodate challanges. Perhaps he carried with him the impression that any modification to the rigid position was a compromise with the world, and compromise equaled apostasy, so he had nowhere to go. I would really like to know the conversations he would have had with his admired mentor, Dr. Metzger, who held to the reliability of the Bible (but not necessarily inerrancy).
• 

  hmike

  Deputy Dog,

  (BTW, I'm old enough to remember that cartoon)

  I would say that most Christians (at least the ones I know) are aware of "problem" verses.

  Many aren't. Too often, pastors ignore or gloss over problems. The worst thing I hear is when pastors tell their people that when someone claims there are contradictions in the Bible, challenge them to name some, and they will fumble around and not come up with anything. Better to be up front about the problems and discuss them.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Many aren't. Too often, pastors ignore or gloss over problems. The worst thing I hear is when pastors tell their people that when someone claims there are contradictions in the Bible, challenge them to name some, and they will fumble around and not come up with anything. Better to be up front about the problems and discuss them.

  I see your point. I don't believe there were contradictions in the Bible when it was revealed to man, some did creep in over time. I believe most of the "apparent" contradictions are easy to explain or account for.
• 

  Narkissos

  Looks like you're saying that there were indeed attempts to correct this problem.

  Erm... yes, that's what I have been saying (rather plainly, I would have thought) right from the start.

  Or, is it possible that an error was created by a copyist? I don't think that was considered by Ehrman, which should have been. In any case, it's interesting to me that those who selected the Greek manuscript as the text to translate from would use a "problem" text when a "better" alternative was available.

  One basic axiom of classical textual criticism is that the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) is often (not always, of course) to be preferred.

  This particularly applies where the variants do give a different meaning and appear to be intentional, rather than mere "copyists' errors". It is most unlikely that a scribe would make a possible intertextual discrepancy look worse or more blatant rathen than try to "correct" or at least "ease" it.

  Would you mind commenting on the article presented by snowbird? Is that explanation about the high priest possible based on the available texts?

  I felt no need to comment because this "solution," as I pointed out above, is most probably just what the scribes who added the article had in mind. Iow, it doesn't apply to the "more difficult reading" which is, by common textual standards, the earliest.

  I'll quote your own Metzger (Textual commentary, ad loc.): "Other witnesses, reluctant to go so far as to delete the phrase, inserted tou before arkhiereôs (or hiereôs) in order to permit the interpretation that the event happened in the time of (but not necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who was afterward) the high priest."
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  hmike,

  Good to hear from you. I doubt that you or I are going to persuade each other to abandon our beliefs, but it is always good for others to read of a respectful debate on the subject.

  Right off the bat, I would encourage anyone to read Ehrmans book "Misquoting Jesus" for themselves. I just want to make the statement that it appears that one big aim of yours hmike is to create doubt on the conculsions reached. What I read from your posts are a lot of "what if" suppositions. What if's have limited value, save for one point you make that I will address. It is interesting that while you and I likely don't have a great deal of time to explore "what if's", scholars like Ehrman make "what if's" on scrolls and translations their life's work. I also like the fact that Ehrman has been on both sides of the issue, as a believer and now as one who doesn't believe that the bible is inspired of god. It offers I think a more pragmatic perspective that is beneficial.

  Most of the books eventually included in the canon were generally accepted among churches by something like AD 200. These books seemed to have survived on their own merits with churches and their leaders, while others which were not included had limited acceptance.

  This is certainly not true at all. There was no cannon to speak of for another couple of hundred years after AD 200, which is why I said "centuries." For that matter, there wasn't a church or single entity that assumed the responsibility. It isn't a matter of the fact that many of these letters weren't in circulation. We know they were. And we know that they were being copied and used by sects of Christians with various agendas. I find it compelling that you mention (albeit briefly) that other letters were in fact around. That is something that can't be ignored can it? The fact that they had "limited acceptance" means what? That "god" foreordained that these letters be ignored? Doesn't this seem a convoluted way for almighty god to work? The fact is there is no evidence at all of the divine care of any of the letters that church fathers from the 4th century on claimed as cannonical. THEY (the church fathers) certainly claim they were, but god is nowhere to be seen in the compliation of these letters of the NT.

  About the books of the canon being decided as the result of a power struggle with the victors getting to choose: while we like to respect everyone's point of view, what if clear direction is needed and choices have to be made as to a course of action that some will like and others will not? Sometimes, "might makes right," but sometimes "right makes might." If there is a God, why wouldn't he empower those who succeeded?

  I will let this statement stand on it's own for others to make their own conclusions. It certainly doesn't present a counter argument at all about the established fact that there was a power struggle among MANY sects of Christianity, nor the fact that the early church councils were at odds over which books to include or exclude in the cannon. This is also an example that I point to in that you seem to be trying to discredit some conclusions in Ehrmans book. "What if clear direction is needed and choices have to be made as to a course of action that some will like and other will not?" I sense that you are trying to be respectful, which I appreciate, as I am trying to be respectful to. The fact is though that the choices on what books were included were 100% man made. No evidence at all that god directed this process exists. The fact that several sects along with several councils over a period of several hundred years were involved in the final decision means what? If you weren't told that the bible is "holy", would an unbiased examination (which Ehrman in fact engages in) reveal anyone seeing "gods hand" in that mess?

  When I said "Is it possible...?" I wanted to suggest other possibilities. I'm suggesting that how we evaluate these texts now, and what we expect of them, is different now in recent history than in ancient times. These texts were written by people to people in a different time and culture than ours. Is it fair to apply OUR standards to their works?

  I agree with you here to a point in principle, although it appears to me your motive in this is again to create doubt in the conclusions Ehrman makes. We should always look at other possibilities when they have merit. But the fact is that ancient standards as regards medicine, science, technology, etc, all need to be judged by what they knew then. Admittedly, that isn't a lot of knowledge compared with where we are today.Why would we apply a different standard to thiestic problems? We know far more then these people did. It is impossible to know what they were thinking 100%, although many did put their thoughts and opinions when making decisions on the cannonicity of certain books. But that in itself doesn't mean we can't examine these using fair standards. As long as the standards are fair and do take into account the thinking of the times, then I think we can get a pretty good idea of what they writers meant. To suggest we can only use the standards of the past to judge the past assumes that such is possible. It is just as open to interpretation and misunderstanding as the bible has proven to be.

  Putting that aside, it isn't the interpretive problems of Greek to English, but of the conclusions of the NT itself, that god in fact exists that we need to examine. Are the claims of the bible backed up with evidence? I can excuse people from the first century right into the beginning of the 20th century for believing in god. But lets look at the facts. Who has shown himself, made himself plain? Or who allowed sects and councils of religious holy men to argue for hundreds of years about what should actually be considered "the word of god?" The facts are clear that "god" certainly allowed men to write all the letters and make all the decisions. Man dominates the scene; god is nowhere to be found.

  There is no question that there were changes. The question is, what do we do with that? Do we have to conclude that this is evidence that God doesn't exist and automatically throw him out of the picture? Well, it depends on what we expect of God.

  I appreciate your honesty here friend. The answer isn't necesarilly "no". But it doesn't depend on what we expect of god, it depends on what the evidence shows.

  If we demand that God verbally dictated the words as one would to a scribe, and that he would actively prevent any and all tampering through history, then we would have a problem. But is that what we see?

  Yes. You don't have to believe this, but after your admission about their being changes, you talk about what "we" demand of god. God supposedly gave us this brain, what are we to use it for? Do you think god would censure us for using it and pointing out what is in evidence? What "we see"?

  When we second-guess about why God didn't do a better job, we can end up asking questions like, "Why did God even rely on men and writing? Why didn't he just leave angels around to tell us?"

  Apparently, Dr. Ehrman had to take an "all-or-nothing" approach. The rigid training he had in his early years of study couldn't accomodate challanges. Perhaps he carried with him the impression that any modification to the rigid position was a compromise with the world, and compromise equaled apostasy, so he had nowhere to go. I would really like to know the conversations he would have had with his admired mentor, Dr. Metzger, who held to the reliability of the Bible (but not necessarily inerrancy).

  I will leave it up to the reader, but this is a confused attempt to me at a defense of why god supposedly did what he did. The funny thing is that the bible contains not one verse of direction by god as to the compilation, care, and distribution of the bible. It is true that scrolls are mentioned in the NT, but that is all they are, scrolls, letters that were known to be in existence. Nothing more. It is the invention of men that got us the cannonical bible of today.

  I also disagree with your charecterization of Ehrmans "all or nothing approach", insofar as Metzger, while himself a thiest, doesn't substantially disagree with any of Ehrmans conclusions. I wonder why.....

  Edited for poor grammer and clarity... Wow, I had a bad day typing. Sorry folks.
• 

  hmike

  Thanks for the interest and reply, Jeff.

  Believe it or not, it is not specifically my intention to persuade you to abandon your beliefs, or for anyone else to do so for that matter, and certainly, I am not out to get other people to necessarily agree with me on this or anything. My intent in this topic, on this forum, and anywhere, is to encourage and even challenge people to investigate and think for themselves. It bothers me to see people automatically buy into anything just because someone says it is so, even if I agree with the position. I got involved here because too often, I saw people applauding anti-theist statements and positions of others when it didn't seem they had really thought it out. Here especially, there are people who accepted JW teaching without question, then were hurt, became disillusioned, and discarded not only the JWs, but everything else connected with it, and accepted whatever someone had to say that discredited the Bible. It's not just atheists I will challenge; I will even challenge Christians to examine their beliefs. I feel it is only when someone has examined and seriously considered his positions that he can truly own them. If someone claims to have thoroughly investigated Biblical issues and comes to a non-Christian position, I can accept that. I realize there are problems with the any Biblical Christian position, and I accept we are all going to see things at least slightly differently because each one of us brings different things to the table. That's why I say, "What if...?" and "Is it possible...?"—I want to propose alternatives that may not have been considered. Those who are truly searching will consider alternatives, and hopefully, will embrace or discard each on its own merit. I don't claim to be able to prove anything about what's beyond our senses, but then, I recognize no body else can either. So it remains a universe of possibilities, some more probable than others.

  Like you, I encourage people to read Ehrman's book, but I also would encourage them not to automatically accept his conclusions. He is a true scholar, yes, but he is also human and subject to human limitations and biases. There are books and websites that have been created to specifically challenge some of his conclusions. To get a fair picture, others should also be examined and considered. Is it my intention to create doubt about his conclusions? Let's say that I won't let them go by without a challenge, because some of them are open to question.

  As for the canon, I know the NT canon was officially settled by the end of the 4th century, but most of the books had long since been recognized by church leaders as authoritative. Is there evidence that God was involved in the process of selecting and preserving these texts? Not evidence as you mean it or are looking for, but lack of the kind of evidence you require doesn't mean it didn't happen. If people who were involved in the process had an explanation, it's worth at least a consideration. When you say, "The fact is though that the choices on what books were included were 100% man made"—there's no fact here. In fairness, the issue is open to question.

  To maybe clarify something I said before...when we look at the collection of texts that make up the Bible, we tend to look at them the way we would examine something written today. We expect certain things of the texts and the information in them if we are to accept as true what they have. Anyone writing something that is hoped to be believed must expect his writings to be scrutinized in this way. I was suggesting that when the Bible texts were written, these standards weren't expected to be applied. Writing from that time and culture should be considered by the standards of the time.

  When you say the way the canon was established was a convoluted way for God to work, it seems consistent with the way things get done sometimes. Maybe not the best way, maybe not the way God would prefer, but maybe the way he would have to work considering the people and the circumstances they gave him to work with.

  You wrote something near the end that many people aren't aware of and I agree with, but I see a different meaning in it. I'd like to elaborate on that in an upcoming post in this thread. You may not agree, yet be surprised.

  Regards,

  Mike
• 

  hmike

  Looks like nobody has anything else to add, so I'll give a few of my conclusions, and maybe that will be the end, or maybe it will encourage additional input.

  We seem to be dealing with two kinds of discrepancies: those within different copies of the same text, and those between different books covering common ground. In the first case, it looks like the best conclusion I can come to is that different texts became known and accepted with different churches in different regions. Once these texts became established in this way, they became resistant to change where they were known. This familiarity acted as a check against alteration, but as the books were circulated, changes crept in when they were copied outside the group that was familiar with them These altered texts survived to be re-copied many times, and even more changes were made. So now we are left with some diversity without knowing which documents go back at least to the original community. As for the latter case, where the books may have appeared to disagree (e. g., Luke and John), the texts were allowed to remain intact for the sake of harmony between the churches. The communities from which these books originated would not tolerate tampering with their text.

  Certainly, all of us can accept that, regardless of who wrote the manuscripts, certain books with whatever their particular slants were accepted by certain communities or in certain regions (e. g., Matthew's work in communities with strong Jewish roots, Luke in Gentile communities or churches started by Paul, John in Ephesus, etc.) These may be seen as competing, but for those of us who accept there to be an ultimate Source common to all these texts and their inclusion into the canon, these are simply parts to the whole. We can talk of the teaching contained within a particular text, but it is also part of the whole Bible, and is properly understood when it is taken as part of the whole. Every writer had their part to contribute, and nobody had it all. This reflects the human element of the Scriptures—God worked with what the writers already had and what they could access. So he moved different people to make their contributions, and we benefit from having a bigger picture. Just as early Christians would have had personal visits from various apostles and their followers, now we have the writings left behind.

  I've wondered why Jesus allowed so many differences within such a short time of his departure. I think it was to challenge his followers to find unity in love in spite of their differences. Certainly, there are some issues with which there can be no compromise, and the selection of some books for the canon and the rejection of others reflects that. Love of God is first—meaning faithfulness to the Supremacy of Christ and his teachings—but, love of neighbor—compassionate tolerance of other differences, even to the point of embracing diversity—must cover everything else. Splintered and divided, the church would not have survived. Embracing others and their contributions was part of the plan. It had to be because the early Christians, like us today, are so diverse in perspective.

  That's my take on it, anyway. I know there are other ways of looking at this issue, but I wanted to make sure this way was represented.

  Back to Dr. Ehrman...

  In his book Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (2007, InterVarsity Press), Dr. Timothy Paul Jones writes of his own struggle with the same issues Dr. Ehrman brought up. Ultimately, Dr. Jones came to entirely different conclusions than Dr. Ehrman. Dr. Jones agrees with Dr. Ehrman's observations that the texts have been altered. Where the disagreement occurs is with what its significance and meaning are. I find this to be the case with others who take issue with Dr. Ehrman's conclusions. (Other responses to Dr. Ehrman's book can be found in The Case for the Real Jesus, by Lee Strobel, 2007, Zondervan, and in The Gospel According to Bart, byDr. Daniel B. Wallace on the website bible.org at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000). This is one of the fascinating aspects of the whole theist-atheist controversy—two people, looking at the same materials, can come to different conclusions. This is true in so many areas, from science to politics. I've been able to observe this first-hand in the jury panels I've served on. We would all have equal access to the same evidence, yet each individual would appraise its meaning and significance differently. We all have our reasons for what we accept and what we reject, and they clearly are outside of objective information.

  Finally, to the texts that caused the problem for Dr. Ehrman...

  I can see why some translations would render Mark 2:26 as "In the days of Abiathar the high priest..." It would not necessarily be to cover up an embarrassing error. Abiathar was far more prominent in the account of David's life than Abiathar's father Ahimelech. Hearers (and later readers) would recognize the name of Abiathar more readily, and it did happen in Abiathar's lifetime. I'm wondering something else, too. I'll assume that the translation should say "When Abaithar was high priest... ." From the account in 1Samuel 22:20-23, it would be easy to assume that Abiathar was quite young. (He avoided the slaughter of priests by Doeg on behalf of Saul, and escaped to tell David.) Since Abaithar outlived David, he was probably younger, but how much younger, we don't know, do we? Is it possible that we could have a situation similar to that of Annas and Caiaphas in John 18? Could Abaithar actually have been the high priest, but he was away at the time, and Ahimelech—formerly the high priest—was serving in that role in his son's absence? Granted, we may not get that from the text of 1 Samuel, but maybe this was known from some other source in the 1st Century AD. (I find it interesting that everyone who has addressed this issue assumed that the "mistake" was made by Mark. Since Mark was supposed to be quoting Jesus as related to him by Peter according to tradition, couldn't that also make Peter, or even Jesus himself, the source of error? I don't think the exemption of Jesus or Peter as suspects is due to any reverence, but, of course, to the questioning that this was actually stated.)

  There are many possibilities, including a miscopying of the names of Abiathar and Ahimelech, which seems to have occurred elsewhere. In any case, it seems that, in itself, the suggestion by his professor was not significant enough to bring about the unraveling of Ehrman's confidence in the Scriptures. His present understanding of things seems to have been nearly a life-long process, and he may not be finished yet. I wonder if he questions every new conclusion, or if they just seem obvious to him. Frankly, I would like to go back to his experience all the way back in high school and the early years after that. I hope he does publish a follow-up book, and I hope he goes into more personal detail.

  Thanks to all who contributed responses to this thread.

  Regards,

  Mike