Dr. Ehrman's "Problem" Verse

by hmike 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hmike

  I revisited this topic because something I just came across fits right in to what I said about Dr. Ehrman and differing points of view. From Dr. Ehrman's Introduction in the book Misquoting Jesus,

  It was during my first semester at Wheaton, then, that I met Dr. Gerald Hawthorne, my Greek teacher and a person who became quite influential in my life as a scholar, teacher, and eventually, friend. Hawthorne, like most of my professors at Wheaton, was a committed evangelical Christian. But he was not afraid of asking questions of his faith. At the time, I took this as a sign of weakness (in fact, I thought I had nearly all the answers to the questions he asked); eventually I saw it as a real commitment to truth and as being willing to open oneself up to the possibility that one's views need to be revised in light of further knowledge and life experience.

  This name comes up again in the book Faith & Doubt, by John Ortberg (2008, Zondervan). (This book is similar to The Myth of Certainty by Daniel Taylor, addressing how Christians can deal with challenges to faith on a personal level). In Chapter 8, Pastor Ortberg recalls his own experiences at Wheaton while studying under Dr. Hawthorne. Ortberg spends several paragraphs recounting what Dr. Hawthorne did that gained adoration and respect from his students, and affirmed that he influenced many lives. On page 122, Ortberg has this to say about the contrasting reactions Ehrman and he (Ortberg) had in facing the challenges:

  Eventually Bart began to ask questions as well. But the notion that the Bible had a human side seemed to him proof that it could not be divine. The only alternative to simpleminded fundamentalism to him seemed to be to reject God altogether. The same teacher and the same questions that deepened my faith dismantled his.

  ...

  Bart and I went to the same school, admired the same teacher, were disturbed and excited by the same questions, and were exposed to the same learning. Yet those experiences led to the growth of faith in one and the growth of doubt in the other. I don't know why.
• 

  Leolaia

  Surely somebody noticed.

  Actually, the problem of Mark 2:26 was noticed in antiquity and handled in a myriad of ways:

  (1) Omission of epi Abiathar arkhiereós: As found in the redaction of the Markan text in Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4, transmission of Mark 2:26 in D W 1009 1546, as well as in some Syriac and Latin MSS. This removed the reference to Abiathar entirely.

  (2) Addition of article tou, yielding epi Abiathar tou arkhiereós: As found in A C 074 33, as well as several minuscules, the Sahidic and Boharic Coptic versions. This made the days of Abiathar discussed in the reference to David not necessarily the days in which Abiathar was high priest.

  (3) Replacement of arkhiereós with hiereós: As found in , the Gothic version, and in some minor versions. This harmonized Mark 2:26 with 1 Samuel by making Abiathar a priest but not yet a high priest (cf. 1 Samuel 22:11-18).

  (4) Interpreting Abiathar and Ahimelech as names for the same person: As found in the writings of John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, 39.1), who said that Mark was "not stating what was contrary to history but was implying that he [Abiathar] had two names." This also potentially aims to resolve the difficulty with 1 Samuel 8:17.

  (5) Interpreting the discrepency in Mark 2:26 as inconsequential inexactness: As found in the writings of Jerome. "I refer to these passages, not to convict the evangelists of falsification ... but to bring home to my critics their own want of knowledge...Now let us turn to the books of Samuel, and we shall find there that the high priest's name was not Abiathar but Ahimelech, the same who afterwards was put to death with the rest of the priests by Doeg at the command of Saul...From all these passages it is clear that the apostles and evangelists in translating the Old Testament Scriptures have sought to give the meaning rather than the words, and that they have not greatly cared to preserve word-order and terms, so long as they could make clear the subject to the understanding" (Epistle 57.9-11).
• 

  Pistoff

  I am no scholar, as narkissos and leolaia, but I have read this book. I also enjoyed Elaine Pagels books, and Burton Macks'.
  I am not a believer anymore, but not an atheist either.
  Being firmly in the camp of not knowing if God exists as defined by any mainstream religion, it is easy to see the believer's bias in hmikes posts. It is easy to see the rhetoric being inserted to allow that this is how God preserved the writings, does it have to be a certain way, etc. It is a rationalization that seeks to find a way that the texts we have today are correct, if only mostly correct. Textural criticism is not concerned with that idea, but only the integrity of the text, and make what conclusions you will.
  The problem with the direction hmike takes is to me one of method. To me, belief is belief; it does not require evidence to be strong. Do Jesus' words mean less to you hmike if you suspect that they might have been altered? If this verse has been altered, what else has been altered, or not recorded or remembered correctly? That to me is the point of Ehrman's book; evidence of any tampering impeaches the entire record to a certain degree. If you require inerrancy of religious writings, this verse is very dangerous.
  But this approach is deeply rooted in JWism, and by the apologists of not only christian writings but other beliefs that claim to be the only truth.
  I am much more interested in the similarity of the Jesus movement and subsequent morphing into him being the Christ, and other religious myth. Anyone read The Hero with a Thousand Faces?
• 

  lovelylil

  So..... a copying mistake in one biblical text ruined this guys entire faith? How sad.

  That would not have happened if this guy understood that the Bible was written by men and although they were influenced by Holy Spirit and faith in God, they were not perfect and could make mistakes. I've read and studied the Bible personally for over 25 years now and I've found most of the "discrepancies" that people get hung up on don't really change the overal message of the text in the slightest. Too bad this guy's view of the Bible was not a balanced one to begin with.

  Peace,

  Lilly
• 

  hmike

  leolaia,

  Thank you very much for your scholarly input.

  BTW, Dr. Ehrman said he put much effort into accounting for this difference in the paper he submitted, but he didn't say what his explanation was.

  Pistoff,

  We like to have some foundation for belief. The question is, "Does it have to be all or nothing?"

  There are so many pieces of the puzzle missing. We fill in the missing pieces differently, and the criteria each of us uses is influenced by a whole host of factors.

  Lilly,

  I'm in agreement with many who have commented that his standards were too rigid. For some, these rigid standards are the way it has to be, and they deal with problem areas by simply dismissing them. For those like Ehrman when he was as a student, if they allow themselves to acknowledge there's a problem, it all falls apart.

  ...

  In reading the introduction to this book, as well as what he has said in interviews, I get a feel for what was going on with him, but there are still unanswered questions.

  Thanks to all who have replied.