The Gospel according to Bart

A review of Bart D. Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why1
Daniel B. Wallace

For most students of the NT, a book on textual criticism is a real yawn. The tedious details are not the stuff of a bestseller. But since its publication on November , !""#, Misquoting Jesus! has been circlin$ hi$her and hi$her toward the %ma&on peak. %nd since Bart 'hrman, one of North %merica(s leadin$ textual critics, appeared on two of N)*(s pro$rams +the Diane Rehm Show and Fresh Air with Terry ,ross-.both within the space of one week.it has been in the top fifty sellers at %ma&on. Within three months, more than "",""" copies were sold. When Neely Tucker(s interview of 'hrman in The Washington Post appeared on /arch # of this year the sales of 'hrman(s book shot up still hi$her. /r. Tucker spoke of 'hrman as a 0fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the ori$ins of 1hristianity that he lost his faith alto$ether.23 Nine days later, 'hrman was the $uest celebrity on 4on 5tewart(s The Daily Show. 5tewart said that seein$ the Bible as somethin$ that was deliberately corrupted by orthodox scribes made the Bible 0more interestin$6almost more $odly in some respects.2 5tewart concluded the interview by statin$, 07 really con$ratulate you. 7t(s a helluva book82 Within 9: hours, Misquoting Jesus was perched on top of %ma&on, if only for a moment. Two months later and it(s still flyin$ hi$h, stayin$ in the !# or so books. 7t 0has become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of the year.29 Not bad for an academic tome on a 0borin$2 topic8 Why all the hoopla; Well, for one thin$, 4esus sells. But not the 4esus of the Bible. The 4esus that sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. %nd with a book entitled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who hanged the Bi!le and Why, a ready audience was created via the hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical 4esus is a fi$ment. 7ronically, almost none of the variants that 'hrman discusses involve sayings of 4esus. The book simply doesn(t deliver what the title promises. 'hrman preferred "ost in Transmission, but the publisher thou$ht such a book mi$ht be perceived by the Barnes and Noble crowd as dealin$ with stock car racin$8 'ven thou$h 'hrman did not choose his resultant title, it has been a publishin$ coup. /ore importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wants reasons not to believe, who considers the Bible a book of myths. 7t(s one thin$ to say that the stories in the Bible are le$end< it(s =uite another to say that many of them were added centuries later. %lthou$h 'hrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the ori$inal form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.
Thanks are due to Darrell >. Bock, Buist /. Fannin$, /ichael W. ?olmes, W. ?all ?arris, and William F. Warren for lookin$ at a preliminary draft of this article and offerin$ their input.
! 3

5an Francisco@ ?arper5anFrancisco, !""#.

Neely Tucker, 0The Book of Bart@ 7n the Bestseller A/is=uotin$ 4esus,( %$nostic %uthor Bart 'hrman )icks %part the ,ospels That /ade a Disbeliever But of ?im,2 Washington Post, /arch #, !""C. %ccessed at http@DDwww.washin$tonpost.comDwpEdynDcontentDarticleD!""CD"3D"9D%*!""C"3"9" 3CF.html.
9

Tucker, 0The Book of Bart.2

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

%ccordin$ to 'hrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticism.a discipline that has been around for nearly 3"" years.for a lay audience.# %pparently he does not count the several books written by G4H Bnly advocates, or the books that interact with them. 7t seems that 'hrman means that his is the first book on the $eneral discipline of NT textual criticism written by a bona fide textual critic for a lay readership. This is most likely true.

Textual Criticism 1 1
Misquoting Jesus for the most part is simply NT textual criticism " . There are seven chapters with an introduction and conclusion. /ost of the book +chs. I9- is basically a popular introduction to the field, and a very $ood one at that. 7t introduces readers to the fascinatin$ world of scribal activity, the process of canoni&ation, and printed texts of the ,reek NT. 7t discusses the basic method of reasoned eclecticism. %ll throu$h these four chapters, various snippets.variant readin$s, =uotations from Fathers, debates between )rotestants and 1atholics .are discussed, ac=uaintin$ the reader with some of the challen$es of the arcane field of textual criticism. 1hapter +0The Be$innin$s of 1hristian 5cripture2- addresses why the NT books were written, how they were received, and when they were accepted as scripture. 1hapter ! +0The 1opyists of the 'arly 1hristian Writin$s2- deals with scribal chan$es to the text, both intentional and unintentional. ?ere 'hrman mixes standard textEcritical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. 7n essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activityC, leavin$ the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recoverin$ the ori$inal wordin$ of the NT. 1hapter 3 +0Texts of the New Testament2- and chapter 9 +0The Juest for Bri$ins2- take us from 'rasmus and the first published ,reek NT to the text of Westcott and ?ort. Discussed are the maKor scholars from the sixteenth throu$h the nineteenth century. This is the most obKective material in the book and makes for fascinatin$ readin$. But even here, 'hrman inKects his own viewpoint by his selection of material. For example, in discussin$ the role that Ben$el played in the history of textual criticism + "FE !-, 'hrman $ives this pious ,erman conservative hi$h praise as a scholar@ he was an 0extremely careful interpreter of the biblical text2 + "F-< 0Ben$el studied e#erything intensely2 + -. 'hrman speaks about Ben$el(s breakthrou$hs in textual criticism + E !-, but does not mention that he was the first important scholar to articulate the doctrine of the orthodoxy of the variants. This is a curious omission because, on the one hand, 'hrman is well aware of this fact, for in the fourth edition of The Te$t o% the &ew Testament, now by Bruce /et&$er and Bart 'hrman,L which appeared Kust months before Misquoting Jesus, the authors note, 0With characteristic ener$y and perseverance, MBen$elN procured all the editions, manuscripts, and early translations available to him. %fter extended study, he came to the conclusions that the variant readin$s were fewer in number than mi$ht have been expected and that they did not sha'e any arti(le o% e#angeli( do(trine.2: Bn the other hand, 'hrman instead mentions 4. 4. Wettstein, a contemporary of Ben$el, who, at the tender a$e of twenty assumed
# C L

Misquoting, #. 5ee especially #FEC".

Bruce /. /et&$er and Bart D. 'hrman, The Te$t o% the &ew Testament: )ts Transmission* orru+tion* and Restoration +Bxford@ BO), !""#-.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

that these variants 0can have no weakenin$ effect on the trustworthiness or inte$rity of the 5criptures,2F but that years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein chan$ed his views after he 0be$an thinkin$ seriously about his own theolo$ical convictions.2 " Bne is tempted to think that 'hrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein@ like Wettstein, 'hrman started out as an evan$elical when in colle$e, but chan$ed his views on the text and theolo$y in his more mature years. But the model that Ben$el supplies.a sober scholar who arrives at =uite different conclusions.is =uietly passed over. What is also curiously left out was Tischendorf(s moti#ation for his indefati$able work of discoverin$ manuscripts and of publishin$ a critical edition of the ,reek text with a full apparatus. Tischendorf is widely acknowled$ed as the most industrious NT textual critic of all time. %nd what motivated him was a desire to recover the earliest form of the text.a text which he believed would vindicate orthodox 1hristianity a$ainst the ?e$elian skepticism of F. 1. Baur and his followers. None of this is mentioned in Misquoting Jesus. Besides the selectivity re$ardin$ scholars and their opinions, these four chapters involve two curious omissions. First, there is next to no discussion about the various manuscripts. 7t(s almost as if external evidence is a nonstarter for 'hrman. Further, as much as he enli$htens his lay readers about the discipline, the fact that he doesn(t $ive them the details about which manuscripts are more trustworthy, older, etc., allows him to control the information flow. *epeatedly, 7 was frustrated in my perusal of the book because it spoke of various readin$s without $ivin$ much, if any, of the data that supported them. 'ven in his third chapter.0Texts of the New Testament@ 'ditions, /anuscripts, and Differences2.there is minimal discussion of the manuscripts, and none of individual codices. 7n the two pa$es that deal specifically with the manuscripts, 'hrman speaks only about their number, nature, and variants. ! 5econd, 'hrman overplays the =uality of the variants while underscorin$ their =uantity. ?e says, 0There are more variations amon$ our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.2 3 'lsewhere he states that the number of variants is as hi$h as 9"",""". 9 That is true enou$h, but by itself is misleadin$. %nyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dan$lin$ in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Bnce it is revealed that the $reat maKority of these variants are inconse=uential. involvin$ spellin$ differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order chan$es, and the like.and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meanin$ of the text, the whole picture be$ins to come into focus. 7ndeed, only about P of the textual
/et&$erE'hrman, Te$t, #: +italics added-. This stands in direct contradiction to 'hrman(s assessment in his conclusion +!"L-, =uoted above.
F :

Juotation from 'hrman, Misquoting,

"

!.

7bid.,

9.

5ee Misquoting, E #, where 'hrman chronicles his own spiritual Kourney. 7n chapter #, 0Bri$inals that /atter,2 'hrman discusses the method of textual criticism. ?ere he devotes about three pa$es to external evidence + !:E3 -, but does not mention any individual manuscripts.
3 !

Misquoting, F". This is a favorite statement of his, for it shows up in his interviews, both in print and on Misquoting, :F.

the radio.
9

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

variants are both meanin$ful and viable. # The impression 'hrman sometimes $ives throu$hout the book.and repeats in interviews C.is that of wholesale uncertainty about the ori$inal wordin$, L a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces. : We can illustrate thin$s this way. There are approximately 3:,""" words in the ,reek NT. The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. %t first blush, that is a strikin$ amount. But in li$ht of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider the ways in which ,reek can say 04esus loves )aul2@ . QRSTU VWX YWZT[
For a discussion of the nature of the textual variants, see 4. 'd Gomos&ewski, /. 4ames 5awyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Rein#enting Jesus: What The Da Hinci 1ode and ,ther &o#el S+e(ulations Don-t Tell .ou +,rand *apids@ Gre$el, /ay !""C-. The book is due out in 4une !""C. The section that addresses textual criticism, comprisin$ five chapters, is called 0)olitically 1orrupt; The Taintin$ of %ncient New Testament Texts.2 0When 7 talk about the hundreds and thousands of differences, it(s true that a lot are insi$nificant. But it(s also true that a lot are hi$hly si$nificant for interpretin$ the Bible2 +'hrman in an interview with 4eri Grent&, harlotte ,!ser#er, December L, !""# Maccessed at http@DDwww.charlotte.comDmldDobserverDlivin$Dreli$ionD 39!:# .htmN-. 7n the same interview, when asked, 07f we don(t have the ori$inal texts of the New Testament.or even copies of the copies of the copies of the ori$inals. what do we have;2 'hrman responded, 0We have copies that were made hundreds of years later.in most cases, many hundreds of years later. %nd these copies are all different from one another.2 Bn The Diane Rehm Show +National )ublic *adio-, December :, !""#, 'hrman said, 0There are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.2 Note the followin$@ 0our manuscripts are6full of mistakes2 +#L-< 0Not only do we not have the ori$inals, we don(t have the first copies of the ori$inals. We don(t even have copies of the copies of the ori$inals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the ori$inals. What we have are copies made later.much later6%nd these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places6 these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don(t even known how many differences there are2 + "-< 0/istakes multiply and $et repeated< sometimes they $et corrected and sometimes they $et compounded. %nd so it $oes. For centuries2 +#L-< 0We could $o on nearly forever talkin$ about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be chan$ed, either accidentally or intentionally. %s 7 have indicated, the examples are not Kust in the hundreds but in the thousands2 +F:-< in discussin$ 4ohn /ill(s textual apparatus of L"L, 'hrman declares, 0To the shock and dismay of many of his readers, /ill(s apparatus isolated some thirty thousand places of variation amon$ the survivin$ witnesses6 /ill was not exhaustive in his presentation of the data he had collected. ?e had, in fact, found far more than thirty thousands places of variation2 +:9-< 05cholars differ si$nificantly in their estimates.some say there are !"",""" variants known, some say 3"",""", some say 9"",""" or more8 We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technolo$y, no one has yet been able to count them all2 +:F-< he concludes his discussion of /ark C.FE!" and 4ohn L.#3E:. , the two lon$est textual problems of the NT by far, by sayin$ that these two texts 0represent Kust two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be chan$ed by scribes2 +C:-. To say that these two textual problems are re+resentati#e of other textual problems is a $ross overstatement@ the ne$t lar$est viable omissionDaddition problem involves Kust two verses. 'hrman does add that 0%lthou$h most of the chan$es are not of this ma$nitude, there are lots of si$nificant chan$es +and lots more insi$nificant ones-62 +CF-. \et even that is a bit misleadin$. By 0most of the chan$es2 'hrman means all other (hanges. '.$., he opens chapter L with these words@ 07t is probably safe to say that the copyin$ of early 1hristians texts was by and lar$e a Aconservative( process. The scribes6were intent on Aconservin$( the textual tradition they were passin$ on. Their ultimate concern was not to modify the tradition, but to preserve it for themselves and for those who would follow them. /ost scribes, no doubt, tried to do a faithful Kob in makin$ sure that the text they reproduced was the same text they inherited2 + LL-. 07t would be a mistake6to assume that the only chan$es bein$ made were by copyists with a personal stake in the wordin$ of the text. 7n fact, most of the chan$es found in our early 1hristian manuscripts have nothin$ to do with theolo$y or ideolo$y. Far and and away the M si(N most chan$es are the result of mistakes, pure and simple.slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled
: L C #

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

!. QRSTU VWX ][ YWZT[ 3. QRSTU VWX YWZT[ 9. QRSTU VWX ][ YWZT[ #. YWZT[ QRSTU VWX C. ][ YWZT[ QRSTU VWX L. YWZT[ QRSTU VWX :. ][ YWZT[ QRSTU VWX F. VWX QRSTU YWZT[ ". VWX QRSTU ][ YWZT[ . VWX QRSTU YWZT[ !. VWX QRSTU ][ YWZT[ 3. VWX YWZT[ QRSTU 9. VWX ][ YWZT[ QRSTU #. VWX YWZT[ QRSTU C. VWX ][ YWZT[ QRSTU These variations only represent a small fraction of the possibilities. 7f the sentence used ^_Z` instead of VWX, for example, or if it be$an with a conKunction such as a`v, bW_v, or cd[, the potential variations would $row exponentially. Factor in synonyms +such as bef_TU for QRSTU-, spellin$ differences, and additional words +such as gf_S]hU, or V_TU with YWZTUand the list of potential variants that do not affect the essence of the statement increases to the hundreds. 7f such a simple sentence as 04esus loves )aul2 could have so many insi$nificant variations, a mere 9"",""" variants amon$ the NT manuscripts seems like an almost ne$li$ible amount. F
words, blunders of one sort or another2 +##-. 0To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of chan$es found amon$ the manuscripts, most of them are completely insi$nificant62 +!"L-. 5uch concessions seem to be wrun$ out of him, for these facts are contrary to his a$enda. 7n this instance, he immediately adds that 07t would be wron$, however, to say.as people sometimes do.that the chan$es in our text have no real bearin$ on what the texts mean or on the theolo$ical conclusions that one draws from them2 +!"LE:-. %nd he prefaces his concession by the bold statement that 0The more 7 studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more 7 reali&ed Kust how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes62 +!"L-. But this is another claim without sufficient nuancin$. \es, scribes have chan$ed the text, but the vast maKority of chan$es are insi$nificant. %nd the vast maKority of the rest are easily detectable. Bne almost $ets the sense that it is the honest scholar in 'hrman who is addin$ these concessions, and the theolo$ical liberal in 'hrman who keeps the concessions at a minimum. This illustration is taken from Daniel B. Wallace, 0>ayin$ a Foundation@ New Testament Textual 1riticism,2 in )nter+reting the &ew Testament Te$t: )ntrodu(tion to the Art and S(ien(e o% /$egesis +a Fests(hri%t for ?arold W. ?oehner-, ed. Darrell >. Bock and Buist /. Fannin$ +Wheaton, 7>@ 1rossway, Mforthcomin$@ !""CN-. Bne more item could be mentioned about 'hrman(s lacunae on the manuscripts. 'hrman seems to be $radually movin$ toward an internal priority view. ?e ar$ues for several readin$s that are han$in$ onto external evidence by a bare thread. This seems stran$e because Kust months before Misquoting Jesus appeared, the fourth edition of Bruce /et&$er(s Te$t o% the &ew Testament was published, coEauthored this time by Bart 'hrman. \et in
F

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

But these criticisms are minor =uibbles. There is nothin$ really earthEshakin$ in the first four chapters of the book. *ather, it is in the introduction that we see 'hrman(s motive, and the last three chapters reveal his a$enda. 7n these places he is especially provocative and $iven to overstatement and non sequitur. The remainder of our review will focus on this material.

!hrman"s !#angelical Bac$ground

7n the introduction, 'hrman speaks of his evan$elical back$round +three years at /oody Bible 7nstitute, two years at Wheaton 1olle$e where he first learned ,reek-, followed by an /.Div. and )h.D. at )rinceton 5eminary. 7t was at )rinceton that 'hrman be$an to reKect some of his evan$elical upbrin$in$, especially as he wrestled with the details of the text of the NT. ?e notes that the study of the NT manuscripts increasin$ly created doubts in his mind@ 07 kept revertin$ to my basic =uestion@ how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of ,od if in fact we don(t have the words that ,od inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes.sometimes correctly and sometimes +many times8- incorrectly;2!" This is an excellent =uestion. %nd it is featured prominently in Misquoting Jesus, bein$ repeated throu$hout the book. Onfortunately, 'hrman does not really spend much time wrestlin$ with it directly. While he was in the master(s pro$ram, he took a course on /ark(s ,ospel from )rofessor 1ullen 5tory. For his term paper, he wrote on the problem of 4esus speakin$ of David(s entry into the temple 0when %biathar was the hi$h priest2 +/ark !.!C-. The wellEknown crux is problematic for inerrancy because, accordin$ to 5am ! , the time when David entered the temple was actually when %biathar(s father, %himelech, was priest. But 'hrman was determined to work around what looked to be the plain meanin$ of the text, in order to salva$e inerrancy. 'hrman tells his readers, )rofessor 5tory(s comment on the paper 0went strai$ht throu$h me. ?e wrote, A/aybe /ark Kust made a mistake.(2! This was a decisive moment in 'hrman(s spiritual Kourney. When he concluded that /ark may have erred, 0the flood$ates opened.2!! ?e be$an to =uestion the historical reliability of many other biblical texts, resultin$ in 0a seismic chan$e2 in his understandin$ of the Bible. 0The Bible,2 'hrman notes, 0be$an to appear to me as a very human book6 This was a human book from be$innin$ to end.2!3 What strikes me as most remarkable in all this is how much 'hrman tied inerrancy to the $eneral historical reliability of the Bible. 7t was an allEorEnothin$ proposition for him. ?e still seems to see thin$s in black and white terms, for he concludes his testimony with these words@ 07t is a radical shift from readin$ the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seein$ it as a very human book6 This is the shift in my own thinkin$ that 7 ended up makin$, and to which 7 am now %ully (ommitted.2!9 There thus seems to be no middle $round in his view
that book, both authors speak more hi$hly of the external evidence than 'hrman does in Misquoting Jesus.
!" !

Misquoting, L.

7bid., F. For a treatment of the problem in /ark !.!C, see Daniel B. Wallace, 0/ark !.!C and the )roblem of %biathar,2 'T5 5W re$ional meetin$, /arch 3, !""9, available at http@DDwww.bible.or$Dpa$e.asp;pa$eiidj3:3F.
!! !3 !9

7bid. 7bid., . 7bid., 3 +italics added-.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

of the text. 7n short, 'hrman seems to have held to what 7 would call a Adomino view of doctrine.( When one falls down, they all fall down. We(ll return to this issue in our conclusion.

The %rthodox Corruption %& Scripture

The heart of the book is chapters #, C, and L. ?ere 'hrman especially discusses the results of the findin$s in his maKor work, The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture.!# ?is concludin$ chapter closes in on the point that he is drivin$ at in this section@ 07t would be wron$6to say.as people sometimes do.that the chan$es in our text have no real bearin$ on what the texts mean or on the theolo$ical conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that Kust the opposite is the case.2!C We pause to observe two fundamental theolo$ical points bein$ stressed in Misquoting Jesus@ first, as we mentioned previously, it is irrelevant to speak of the Bible(s inerrancy because we no lon$er have the ori$inal documents< second, the variants in the manuscripts chan$e the basic theolo$y of the NT. The 'ogical (allacy in )enying an *nerrant +utograph %lthou$h 'hrman does not really develop this first ar$ument, it does deserve a response. We need to be$in by makin$ a careful distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy. 7nspiration relates to the wording of the Bible, while inerrancy relates to the truth of a statement. %merican evan$elicals $enerally believe that only the ori$inal text is inspired. This is not to say, however, that copies can(t be inerrant. 7ndeed, statements that bear no relation to scripture can be inerrant. 7f 7 say, 07 am married and have four sons, two do$s, and a cat,2 that(s an inerrant statement. 7t(s not inspired, nor at all related to scripture, but it is true. 5imilarly, whether )aul says 0we have peace2 or 0let us have peace2 in *om #. , both statements are true +thou$h each in a different sense-, thou$h only one is inspired. Geepin$ this distinction in mind as we consider the textual variants of the NT should clarify matters. *e$ardless of what one thinks about the doctrine of inerrancy, the ar$ument a$ainst it on the basis of the unknown auto$raphs is lo$ically fallacious. This is so for two reasons. First, we have the text of the NT somewhere in the manuscripts. There is no need for conKecture, except perhaps in one or two places.!L 5econd, the text we have in any viable variants is no more a problem for inerrancy than other problems where the text is secure. Now, to be sure, there are some challen$es in the textual variants to inerrancy. This is not denied. But there are simply bi$$er fish
The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament +Bxford@ BO), FF3-.
!C !L !#

7bid., !":.

!: , n. # +to ch. :-, 07s What We ?ave Now What They Wrote Then;2 in Rein#enting Jesus is here duplicated@ 0There are two places in the New Testament where conKecture has perhaps been needed. 7n %cts C. ! the standard critical ,reek text $ives a readin$ that is not found in any ,reek manuscripts. But even here, some members of the OB5 committee reKected the conKecture, ar$uin$ that certain manuscripts had the ori$inal readin$. The difference between the two readin$s is only one letter. +5ee discussion in Bruce /. /et&$er, A Te$tual ommentary on the 0ree' &ew Testament, !d ed. M5tutt$art@ Deutsche Bibel$esellschaft, FF9N, 3F3IF#< N'T Bible 0tc2 note on %cts C. !.- %lso, in *evelation ! . L the standard ,reek text follows a conKecture that Westcott and ?ort ori$inally put forth, thou$h the textual problem is not listed in either the OB5 text or the NestleE%land text. This conKecture is a mere spellin$ variant that chan$es no meanin$ in the text.2

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

to fry when it comes to issues that inerrancy faces. Thus, if conKectural emendation is unnecessary, and if no viable variant re$isters much of a blip on the radar called Aproblems for inerrancy,( then not havin$ the ori$inals is a moot point for this doctrine. 7t(s not a moot point for verbal inspiration, of course, but it is for inerrancy.!: Cardinal )octrines +&&ected by Textual ,ariants'hrman(s second theolo$ical point occupies center sta$e in his book. 7t will accordin$ly occupy the rest of this review. 7n chapters five and six, 'hrman discusses several passa$es that involve variants that alle$edly affect core theolo$ical beliefs. ?e summari&es his findin$s in his concludin$ chapter as follows@ 7n some instances, the very meanin$ of the text is at stake, dependin$ on how one resolves a textual problem@ Was 4esus an an$ry man M/ark .9 N; Was he completely distrau$ht in the face of death M?eb !.:IFN; Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without bein$ harmed M/ark C.FI!"N; Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothin$ but a mild warnin$ M4ohn L.#3I:. N; 7s the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly tau$ht in the New Testament M 4ohn #.LI:N; 7s 4esus actually called 0the uni=ue ,od2 there M4ohn . :N; Does the New Testament indicate that even the 5on of ,od himself does not know when the end will come M/att !9.3CN; The =uestions $o on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us.!F 7t is apparent that such a summary is intended to focus on the maKor problem passa$es that 'hrman has uncovered. Thus, followin$ the wellEworn rabbinic principle of a maiore ad minus3", or ar$uin$ from the $reater to the lesser, we will address Kust these seven texts.

The .roblem With .roblem .assages

Three of these passa$es have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholars.includin$ most e#angeli(al NT scholars.for well over a century +/ark C.FI!"< 4ohn L.#3I:. < and 4ohn #.LI:-.3 \et 'hrman writes as thou$h the excision of such texts could shake up our theolo$ical convictions. 5uch is hardly the case. +We will suspend discussion of one of these passa$es, 4ohn #.LI:, until the end.-

For a discussion of this issue, see Daniel B. Wallace, 07nerrancy and the Text of the New Testament@ %ssessin$ the >o$ic of the %$nostic Hiew,2 posted in 4anuary !""C on http@DDwww.9truth.netDsiteDappsDnlDcontent3.asp;cjhiGk>b)N>rFlbjL:999 lctj LFF3" .
!F 3"

!:

Misquoting, !":.

5ee ?ermann >. 5track, )ntrodu(tion to the Talmud and Midrash +%theneum, N\@ Temple, FL:- F9, FC for this hermeneutical principle known as 1al Wa2homer. %n accessible discussion of the textual problem in these three passa$es can be found in the footnotes of the N'T Bible on these texts.
3

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

The 'ast T/el#e ,erses o& Mar$ and the .ericope +dulterae %t the same time, 'hrman implicitly raises a valid issue. % $lance at virtually any 'n$lish Bible today reveals that the lon$er endin$ of /ark and the +eri(o+e adulterae are to be found in their usual places. Thus, not only do the G4H and NG4H have these passa$es +as would be expected-, but so do the %5H, *5H, N*5H, N7H, TN7H, N%5B, '5H, T'H, N%B, N4B, and N'T. \et the scholars who produced these translations, by and lar$e, do not subscribe to the authenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enou$h@ they don(t show up in the oldest and best manuscripts and their internal evidence is decidedly a$ainst authenticity. Why then are they still in these Bibles; The answer to this =uestion varies. For some, they seem to be in the Bibles because of a tradition of timidity. There are seemin$ly $ood reasons for this. The rationale is typically that no one will buy a particular version if it lacks these famous passa$es. %nd if they don(t buy the version, it can(t influence 1hristians. 5ome translations have included the +eri(o+e adulterae because of mandate from the papal authorities declarin$ the passa$e to be scripture. The N'BD*'B include it at the end of the ,ospels, rather than in its traditional location. The TN7H and N'T have both passa$es in smaller font with brackets around them. 5maller type of course makes it harder to read from the pulpit. The N'T adds a len$thy discussion about the inauthenticity of the verses. /ost translations mention that these pericopae are not found in the oldest manuscripts, but such a comment is rarely noticed by readers today. ?ow do we know this; From the shock waves produced by 'hrman(s book. 7n radio, TH, and newspaper interviews with 'hrman, the story of the woman cau$ht in adultery is almost always the first text brou$ht up as inauthentic, and the mention is calculated to alarm the audience. >ettin$ the public in on scholarly secrets about the text of the Bible is not new. 'dward ,ibbon, in his sixEvolume bestseller, The De(line and Fall o% the Roman /m+ire, noted that the omma Johanneum, or Trinitarian formula of 4ohn #.LI:, was not authentic.3! This scandali&ed the British public of the ei$hteenth century, for their only Bible was the %uthori&ed Hersion, which contained the formula. 0Bthers had done MthisN before him, but only in academic and learned circles. ,ibbon did so before the $eneral public, in lan$ua$e desi$ned to offend.233 \et by the time the *evised Hersion appeared in ::#, no trace of the omma was to be found in it. Today the text is not printed in modern translations, and it hardly raises an eyebrow. 'hrman has followed in ,ibbon(s train by exposin$ the public to the inauthenticity of /ark C.FE!" and 4ohn L.#3E:. . The problem here, thou$h, is a bit different. 5tron$ emotional ba$$a$e is especially attached to the latter text. For years, it was my favorite passa$e that was not in the Bible. 7 would even preach on it as true historical narrative, even after 7 reKected its literaryDcanonical authenticity. %nd we all know of preachers who can(t =uite $ive it up, even thou$h they, too, have doubts about it. But there are two problems with this approach. First, in terms of popularity between these two texts, 4ohn : is the overwhelmin$ favorite, yet its external credentials are si$nificantly worse than /ark C(s. The same preacher who declares the /arkan passa$e to be inauthentic extols the virtues of 4ohn :. This inconsistency is appallin$. 5omethin$ is amiss in our theolo$ical seminaries when one(s feelin$s are allowed to be the arbiter of textual
3! 'dward ,ibbon, The 3istory o% the De(line and Fall o% the Roman /m+ire, 'dition De>uxe, six volumes +)hiladelphia@ 4ohn D. /orris, M F""N- 3.L"3I#. 33

4ames Bentley, Se(rets o% Mount Sinai: The Story o% the ode$ Sinaiti(us +>ondon@ Brbis, F:#- !F.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

problems. 5econd, the +eri(o+e adulterae is most likely not even histori(ally true. 7t was probably a story conflated from two different accounts.39 Thus, the excuse that one can proclaim it because the story really happened is apparently not valid. 7n retrospect, keepin$ these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than rele$atin$ them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb Kust waitin$ to explode. %ll 'hrman did was to li$ht the fuse. Bne lesson we must learn from Misquoting Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the $ap between the church and the academy. We have to educate believers. 7nstead of tryin$ to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be ready for the barra$e, because it is comin$.3# The intentional dumbin$ down of the church for the sake of fillin$ more pews will ultimately lead to defection from 1hrist. 'hrman is to be thanked for $ivin$ us a wakeEup call. This is not to say that everythin$ 'hrman has written in this book is of that ilk. But these three passa$es are. %$ain, we need to stress@ these texts chan$e no fundamental doctrine, no core belief. 'van$elical scholars have atheti&ed them for over a century without disturbin$ one iota of orthodoxy. The remainin$ four textual problems, however, tell a different story. 'hrman appeals either to an interpretation or to evidence that most scholars consider, at best, doubtful. 0ebre/s 12345 Translations are rou$hly united in how they treat ?eb !.Fb. The N'T is representative@ 0by ,od(s $race he would experience death on behalf of everyone.2 'hrman su$$ests that 0by ,od(s $race2.mnf_]_ o`Tpq.is a secondary readin$. 7nstead, he ar$ues that 0apart from ,od,2 or mrfU o`T, is what the author ori$inally wrote. There are but three ,reek manuscripts that have this readin$, all from the tenth century or later. 1odex L3F, however, is one of them, and it is a copy of an early and decent manuscript. mrfU o`T is also discussed in several fathers, one Hul$ate manuscript, and some copies of the )eshitta.3C /any scholars would dismiss such paltry evidence without further ado. 7f they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because even thou$h it has a poor pedi$ree, mrfU o`T is the harder readin$ and thus may re=uire some explanation, since scribes tended to smooth out the wordin$ of the text. %s well, somethin$ needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a readin$ is an unintentional chan$e, the canon of the harder readin$ is invalid. The hardest readin$ will be a nonsense readin$, somethin$ that cannot be created on purpose. %lthou$h mrfsU is apparently the harder readin$,3L it can be
39 3#

5ee Bart D. 'hrman, 04esus and the %dulteress,2 &TS 39 + F::- !9E99.

Because of this need, Rein#enting Jesus was written. %lthou$h written on a popular level, it is backed with serious scholarship. 'hrman says the readin$ 0occurs in only two documents of the tenth century2 +Misquoting Jesus, 9#-, by which he means only two 0ree' documents, "!93 +" ! b- and L3Ftxt. These manuscripts are closely related and probably represent a common archetype. 7t is also found in 9!9 c#id +thus, apparently a later correction in an eleventh century minuscule- as well as v$ms syrpmss Bri$en$r +vr-, lat /55accordin$ to Bri$en Theodore Nestorians accordin$ to )sEBecumenius Theodoret D!< lem %mbrose /55accordin$ to 4erome Hi$ilius Ful$entius. 'hrman does note some of the patristic evidence, underscorin$ an important ar$ument, vi&., 0Bri$en tells us that this was the readin$ of the maKority of manuscripts in his own day2 +ibid.-. This, however, is not necessarily the case. %n ar$ument could be made that mnf_]_ o`T is the harder readin$, since the cry of dereliction from the cross, in which 4esus =uoted )s !!. , may be reflected in the mrfU
3L 3C

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

explained as an accidental alteration. 7t is most likely due either to a Ascribal lapse(3: in which an inattentive copyist confused mrfsU for mnf_]_, or Aa mar$inal $loss( in which a scribe was thinkin$ of 1or #.!L which, like ?eb !.:, =uotes )s :.C in reference to ,od(s subKection of all thin$s to 1hrist.3F Without $oin$ into the details of 'hrman(s defense of mrfsU, we simply wish to note four thin$s. First, he overstates his case by assumin$ that his view is (ertainly correct. %fter three pa$es of discussion of this text in his ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture, he pronounces the verdict@ 0The external evidence notwithstandin$, ?ebrews !@F must have ori$inally said that 4esus died Aapart from ,od.(29" ?e(s still seein$ thin$s in black and white terms. 5econd, 'hrman(s textEcritical views are $ettin$ dan$erously close to ri$orous eclecticism.9 The external data seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to want to see theolo$ical corruption in the text. Third, even thou$h he is certain about his verdict, his mentor, Bruce /et&$er, is not. % year after ,rthodo$ orru+tion was published, /et&$er(s second edition of his Te$tual ommentary appeared. The OB5 committee still $ave the mnf_]_ o`T readin$ the palm, but this time u+grading their conviction to an A%( ratin$.9! Finally, even assumin$ that mrfU o`T is the
o`T readin$, while dyin$ 0by the $race of ,od2 is not as clear.
3: 3F

5o /et&$er, Te$tual ommentary!, #F#. 7n uncial script@ caritiqu vs. cwrisqu.

7bid. For similar ar$uments, see F. F. Bruce, The /+istle to the 3e!rews, rev ed, N71NT +,rand *apids@ 'erdmans, FF"- L"IL , n. #. The point of the mar$inal $loss is that in ?eb !.: the author =uotes )s :.C, addin$ that 0in the subKectin$ of all thin$s to him, he left nothin$ outside of his control.2 7n 1or #.!L, which also =uotes )s :.C, )aul adds the =ualifier that ,od was excluded from the Aall thin$s( that were subKected to 1hrist. /et&$er ar$ues that the $loss was most likely added by a scribe 0to explain that Aeverythin$ in ver. : does not include ,od< this $loss, bein$ erroneously re$arded by a later transcriber as a correction of mnf_]_ o`T, was introduced into the text of ver. F2 +Te$tual ommentary, #F#-. For the better treatments of this problem in the exe$etical literature, see ?ansEFriedrich Weiss, Der Brie% an die 3e!r4er in /eyerG +,tttin$en@ Handenhoeck und *uprecht, FF - !""I!< Bruce, 3e!rews, L"IL . 'hrman says that such is =uite unlikely because of the location of the mrfsU readin$ in v F rather than as an additional note in v : where it belon$s. But the fact that such an explanation presupposes a sin$le errant ancestor for the few witnesses that have it is hardly a stretch. 5tran$er thin$s have happened amon$ the manuscripts. 'hrman adds that mrfsU is the less usual term in the NT, and thus scribes would tend toward the more usual, mnf_]_. But in ?ebrews mrfsU is almost twice as fre=uent as mnf_U, as 'hrman notes +,rthodo$ orru+tion-, 9:. Further, althou$h it is certainly true that scribes 0typically confuse unusual words for common ones2 +ibid., 9L-, there is absolutely nothin$ unusual about mrfsU. 7t occurs 9 times in the NT, thirteen of which are in ?ebrews. This brin$s us back to the canon of the harder readin$. 'hrman ar$ues that mrfsU is indeed the harder readin$ here, but in /et&$erE'hrman, Te$t, he +and /et&$er- says, 0Bbviously, the cate$ory Amore difficult readin$( is relative, and a point is sometimes reached when a readin$ must be Kud$ed to be so difficult that it can have arisen only by accident in transcription2 +3"3-. /any scholars, includin$ /et&$er, would say that that point was reached in ?eb !.F.
9" 9

,rthodo$ orru+tion, 9F +italics added-.

By this, 7 do not mean merely his adoption of mrfU o`T here. +%fter all, ,unther vunt&, hi$hly re$arded as a brilliant and soberEminded reasoned eclectic, also considered mrfU o`T as authentic MThe Te$t o% the /+istles: A Disquisition u+on the 1orpus )aulinum M5chweich >ectures, F9C< >ondon@ BO), F#3- 39I3#N.*ather, 7 am referrin$ to 'hrman(s overall a$enda of exploitin$ the apparatus for orthodox corruptions, re$ardless of the evidence for alternative readin$s. With this a$enda, 'hrman seems driven to ar$ue for certain readin$s that have little external support. The preface to this edition was written on 5eptember 3", FF3. /et&$er is acknowled$ed in ,rthodo$ orru+tion as havin$ Aread parts of the manuscript( +vii-, a book completed in February FF3 +ibid., viii-. 7f /et&$er read the section on ?eb !.F, he still disa$reed stron$ly with 'hrman. %lternatively he was not shown this portion of
9!

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

correct readin$ here, 'hrman has not made out a case that this is a variant that 0affectMsN the interpretation of an entire !oo' of the New Testament.293 ?e ar$ues that 0MtNhe less attested readin$ is also more consistent with the theolo$y of ?ebrews.299 ?e adds that the author 0repeatedly emphasi&es that 4esus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of ,od. ?is sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. /oreover, ,od did not intervene in his passion and did nothin$ to minimi&e his pain. 4esus died Aapart from ,od.(29# 7f this is the view of 4esus throu$hout ?ebrews, how does the variant that 'hrman adopts in !.F chan$e that portrait; 7n his ,rthodo$ orru+tion, 'hrman says that 0?ebrews #@L speaks of 4esus, in the face of death, beseechin$ ,od with loud cries and tears.29C But that this text is speakin$ of 4esus Ain the face of death( is not at all clear +nor does 'hrman defend this view-. Further, he builds on this in his concludin$ chapter of Misquoting Jesus.even thou$h he has never established the point.when he asks, 0Was M4esusN completely distrau$ht in the face of death;29L ?e $oes even further in ,rthodo$ orru+tion. 7 am at a loss to understand how 'hrman can claim that the author of ?ebrews seems to know 0of passion traditions in which 4esus was terri%ied in the face of death29: unless it is by connectin$ three dots, all of which are dubious.vi&., readin$ mrfU o`T in ?eb !.F, seein$ #.L as referrin$ principally to the death of 1hrist and that his prayers were principally for himself,9F and then re$ardin$ the loud cries there to reflect his terrified state. 'hrman seems to be buildin$ his case on linked hypotheses, which is a poor foundation at best. Mar$ 1261 7n the first chapter of /ark(s ,ospel, a leper approaches 4esus and asks him to heal him@ 07f you are willin$, you can make me clean2 +/ark .9"-. 4esus( response is recorded in the NestleE %land text as follows@ bW6 SXZWVm[_So`_6HU b]`s[WU ][ m`fW W]T wW]T bW6 ZdV`_ W]xy odZr, bWoWfsSoR]_ +0and moved with compassion, he stretched out MhisN hand and touched him and said to him, A7 am willin$< be cleansed2-. 7nstead of SXZWVm[_So`_6vU +Amoved

the manuscript. 7f the latter, one has to wonder why 'hrman would not want to $et /et&$er(s input since he already knew, from the first edition of Te$tual ommentary, that /et&$er did not see the cwrivH readin$ as likely +there it is $iven a AB( ratin$-.
93 99 9# 9C 9L 9: 9F

Misquoting, 3! +italics added-. ,rthodo$ orru+tion, 9:. 7bid., 9F. 7bid. Misquoting Jesus, !":. ,rthodo$ orru+tion, 99 +italics added-.

The context of ?eb #, however, speaks of 1hrist as hi$h priest< v C sets the sta$e by linkin$ 1hrist(s priesthood to that of /elchi&edek< v L connects his prayers with 0the days of his flesh,2 not Kust with his passion. 7t is thus not unreasonable to see his prayers as prayers for his people. %ll this su$$ests that more than the passion is in view in ?eb #.L. The one datum in this text that may connect the prayers with the passion is that the one to whom 1hrist prayed was 0able to save him from death.2 But if the prayers are restricted to 1hrist(s ordeal on the cross, then the mrfsU readin$ in ?eb !.F seems to be refuted, for in #.L the >ord 0was heard M`SWbTpSo`_6vUN because of his devotion.2 ?ow could he be heard if he died a+art %rom 0od; The interpretive issues in ?eb #.L are somewhat complex, yieldin$ no facile answers. 5ee William >. >ane, 3e!rews 567, WB1 +Dallas@ Word, FF - FI!".

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

with compassion(- a few Western witnesses#" read fV_So`sU +Abecomin$ an$ry(-. 4esus( motivation for this healin$ apparently han$s in the balance. 'ven thou$h the OB59 $ives SXZWVm[_So`_6vU a B ratin$, an increasin$ number of exe$etes are startin$ to ar$ue for the authenticity of fV_So`sU. 7n a Fests(hri%t for ,erald ?awthorne in !""3, 'hrman made an impressive ar$ument for its authenticity.# Four years earlier, a doctoral dissertation by /ark )roctor was written in defense of oKr$is=eivH.#! The readin$ has also made its way into the TN7H, and is seriously entertained in the N'T. We won(t take the time to consider the ar$uments here. %t this sta$e 7 am inclined to think it is most likely ori$inal. 'ither way, for the sake of ar$ument, assumin$ that the Aan$ry( readin$ is authentic, what does this tell us about 4esus that we didn(t know before; 'hrman su$$ests that if /ark ori$inally wrote about 4esus( an$er in this passa$e, it chan$es our picture of 4esus in Mar' si$nificantly. 7n fact, this textual problem is his lead example in chapter # +0Bri$inals That /atter2-, a chapter whose central thesis is that some variants 0affect the interpretation of an entire !oo' of the New Testament.2#3 This thesis is overstated in $eneral, and particularly for /ark(s ,ospel. 7n /ark 3.# 4esus is said to be an$ry.wordin$ that is indisputably in the ori$inal text of Mar'. %nd in /ark ". 9 he is indi$nant at his disciples. 'hrman, of course, knows this. 7n fact, he ar$ues implicitly in the ?awthorne Fests(hri%t that 4esus( an$er in /ark .9 perfectly fits into the picture that /ark elsewhere paints of 4esus. ?e says, for example, 0/ark described 4esus as an$ry, and, at least in this instance, scribes took offense. This comes as no surprise< apart from a fuller understandin$ of /ark(s portrayal, 4esus( an$er is difficult to understand.2#9 'hrman even lays out the fundamental principle that he sees runnin$ throu$h /ark@ 04esus is an$ered when anyone =uestions his authority or ability to heal. or his desire to heal.2## Now, for sake of ar$ument, let(s assume that not only is 'hrman(s textual reconstruction correct, but his interpretation of fV_So`sU in /ark .9 is correct.not only in that passa$e but in the totality of /ark(s presentation of 4esus.#C 7f so, how then does an an$ry 4esus in .9 0affect the interpretation of an entire !oo' of the New Testament2; %ccordin$ to
#" #

D ita d ff! r Diatessaron.

Bart D. 'hrman, 0% >eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 in &ew Testament 0ree' and /$egesis: /ssays in 3onor o% 0erald F. 3awthorne +,rand *apids@ 'erdmans, !""3- LLIF:. /ark %. )roctor, 0The AWestern( Text of /ark @9 @ % 1ase for the %n$ry 4esus2 +)h.D. diss., Baylor Oniversity, FFF-. 'ven thou$h 'hrman(s article appeared four years after )roctor(s dissertation, 'hrman did not mention )roctor(s work.
#3 #9 ## #!

Misquoting, 3! +italics added-. 'hrman, 0% >eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 F#.

7bid., F9. 5ee also :L@ 04esus $ets an$ry on several occasions in /ark(s ,ospel< what is most interestin$ to note is that each account involves 4esus( ability to perform miraculous deeds of healin$.2 There are a few weak links in his overall ar$ument, however. First, he does not make out the best case that every instance in which 4esus is an$ry is in a healin$ account. 7s the pericope about 4esus layin$ hands on children really a healing story + ". 3E C-; 7t is unclear what disease these children are bein$ Ahealed( of. ?is su$$estion that the layin$ on of hands indicates healin$ or at least the transmission of divine power here is lame +0% >eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 ::-. Further, it proves too much, for ". C says that 4esus 0took the children in his arms and placed his hands on them and blessed them.2 To not see a compassionate and $entle 4esus in such a text is almost incomprehensible. 5o, if this is a healin$ narrative, it also implies 4esus( compassion in the very act of healin$.a motive that 'hrman says never occurs in healin$ narratives in /ark.
#C

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

'hrman(s own interpretation, fV_So`sU only stren$thens the ima$e we see of 4esus in this ,ospel by makin$ it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his an$er. 7f this readin$ is 'xhibit % in 'hrman(s fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little or nothin$ to alter the overall portrait of 4esus that /ark paints. ?ere is another instance, then, in which 'hrman(s theolo$ical conclusion is more provocative than the evidence su$$ests. Matthe/ 16278 7n the Blivet Discourse, 4esus speaks about the time of his own return. *emarkably, he confesses that he does not know exactly when that will be. 7n most modern translations of /att
5econd, he claims that 4esus( healin$ of )eter(s motherEinElaw in /ark .3"E3 is not a compassionate act@ 0/ore than one wry observer has noted6that after he does so she $ets up to feed them supper2 +ibid., F , n. C-. But surely 'hrman(s statement.repeated in Misquoting Jesus + 3:-.is simply a politically correct comment that is meant to su$$est that for 4esus to restore the woman to a subservient role (annot be due to his compassion. 7s not the point rather that the woman was fully healed, her stren$th completely recovered, even to the point that she could return to her normal duties and 4esus and his disciples; %s such, it seems to function similarly to the raisin$ of the syna$o$ue ruler(s dau$hter, for as soon as her life was restored /ark tells us that 0the $irl $ot up at once and be$an to walk around2 +/ark #.9!-. Third, in more than one healin$ narrative in the synoptic ,ospels.includin$ the healin$ of )eter(s motherE inElaw.we see stron$ hints of compassion on 4esus( part when he $rabs the person(s hand. 7n /att F.!#< /ark .3 < #.9 < F.!L< and >uke :.#9 the expression each time is bfW]SWUDbfn]RS`[ ]U m`_fhU. kratevw with a geniti#e direct obKect, rather than an accusative direct obKect, is used in these texts. 7n the ,ospels when this verb takes an accusative direct obKect, it has the force of sei8ing, (linging to, holding %irmly +cf. /att 9.3< ! .9C< !!.C< !C.#L< !:.F< /ark C. L< L.3, 9, :< but when it takes a $enitive direct obKect, it implies a $entle touch more than a firm $rip, and is used only in healin$ contexts +note the translation in the N'T of bfW]SWUDbfn]RS`[ ]U m`_fhU in /att F.!#< /ark .3 < #.9 < F.!L< and >uke :.#9-. What is to be noted in these texts is not only that there is no difference between /ark on the one hand and /atthew and >uke on the other, but that /ark actually has more instances of this idiom than /atthew and >uke combined. ?ow does this A$ently takin$ herDhim by the hand( not speak of compassion; Fourth, to not see 4esus( compassion in texts that don(t use SXZWVm[szTcW_ or the like, as 'hrman is wont to do, borders on the lexicalEconceptual e=uation fallacy in which a concept cannot be seen in a $iven text unless the word for such a concept is there. To take a simple example, consider the word for Afellowship( in the ,reek NT, bT_[r[sW. The word occurs less than twenty times, but no one would claim that the concept of fellowship occurs so infre=uently. 'hrman, of course, knows this and tries to ar$ue that both the words for compassion and the concept are not to be seen in /ark(s healin$ stories. But he leaves the impression that since he has established this point lexically by atheti&in$ SXZWVm[_So`sU in /ark .9 , the concept is easy to dispense with. Fifth, 'hrman(s dismissal of all alternative interpretations to his understandin$ of why and at whom 4esus was an$ry in /ark .9 is too cavalier. ?is certitude that 0even the commentators who reali&e that the text ori$inally indicated that 4esus became an$ry are embarrassed by the idea and try to explain it away, so that the text no lon$er means what it says2 +0% >eper in the ?ands of an %n$ry 4esus,2 :C- implies that his interpretation surely must be ri$ht. +%lthou$h 'hrman makes =uick work of various views, he does not interact at all with )roctor(s view, apparently because he was unaware of )roctor(s dissertation when he wrote his piece for the ?awthorne Fests(hri%t. )roctor essentially ar$ues that the healin$ of the leper is a dou!le healin$, which also implicitly involves an exorcism M0% 1ase for the %n$ry 4esus,2 3 !E CN. )roctor summari&es his ar$ument as follows@ 0,iven + - popular firstE century views re$ardin$ the link between demons and disease, +!- the exorcistic lan$ua$e of v 93, +3- the behavior of demoniacs and those associated with them elsewhere in the ,ospel, and +9- >uke(s treatment of /ark @!FE3 , this seems to be a relatively safe assumption even thou$h /ark makes Msi(N does not explicitly describe the man as a demoniac2 M3!#E!C, n. CN.- Not only does 'hrman char$e exe$etes with misunderstandin$ /ark(s fV_So`sU, he also says that /atthew and >uke don(t understand@ 0M%Nnyone not intimately familiar with /ark(s ,ospel on its own terms6 may not have understand why 4esus became an$ry. /atthew certainly did not< neither did >uke2 +ibid., F:-. 7s it not perhaps a bit too brash to claim that the reason /atthew and >uke dropped oKr$is=eivH was because they

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

!9.3C, the text basically says, 0But as for that day and hour no one knows it.neither the an$els in heaven, nor the Son.except the Father alone.2 ?owever, many manuscripts, includin$ some early and important ones, lack Ta phU. Whether 0nor the 5on2 is authentic or not is disputed.#L Nevertheless, 'hrman a$ain speaks confidently on the issue.#: The importance of this textual variant for the thesis of Misquoting Jesus is difficult to assess, however. 'hrman alludes to /att !9.3C in his conclusion, apparently to underscore his ar$ument that textual variants alter basic doctrines.#F ?is initial discussion of this passa$e certainly leaves this impression as well.C" But if he does not mean this, then he is writin$ more provocatively than is necessary, misleadin$ his readers. %nd if he does mean it, he has overstated his case. What is not disputed is the wordin$ in the parallel in /ark 3.3!.0But as for that day or hour no one knows it.neither the an$els in heaven, nor the Son.except the Father.2C Thus, there can be no doubt that 4esus spoke of his own prophetic i$norance in the Blivet Discourse. 1onse=uently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here; Bne simply cannot maintain that the wordin$ in /att !9.3C chan$es one(s basic theolo$ical convictions about 4esus since the same sentiment is found in /ark. Not once in Misquoting Jesus does 'hrman mention /ark 3.3!, even thou$h he explicitly discusses /att !9.3C at least six times, seemin$ly to the effect that this readin$ impacts our fundamental understandin$ of 4esus.C! But does the wordin$ chan$e our basic understandin$ of Matthew-s view of 4esus; 'ven that is not the case. 'ven if /att !9.3C ori$inally lacked 0nor the 5on,2 the fact that the Father alone +` c XW]f 9:;<=- has this knowled$e certainly implies the 5on(s i$norance +and the 0alone2 is only found in /att !9.3C,

were ignorant of /ark(s purposes; %fter all, were they not also Aintimately familiar with /ark(s ,ospel(; %re there not any other plausible reasons for their omission; %lon$ these lines, it should be noted that not all interpretations are created e=ual, but the irony here is that 'hrman seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. 7n the concludin$ chapter of Misquoting Jesus he says 0meanin$ is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves. 7f texts could speak for themselves, then everyone honestly and openly readin$ a text would a$ree on what the text says2 +! C-. ?e adds, 0The only way to make sense of a text is to read it, and the only way to read it is by puttin$ it in other words, and the only way to put it in other words is by havin$ other words to put it into, and the only way you have other words to put it into is that you have a life, and the only way to have a life is by bein$ filled with desires, lon$in$s, needs, wants, beliefs, perspectives, worldviews, opinions, likes, dislikes.and all the other thin$s that make human bein$s human. %nd so to read a text, necessarily, is to chan$e a text2 +! L-. 7 may be misunderstandin$ him here, but this sounds as thou$h 'hrman cannot claim his own interpretation as superior to others since all interpretation chan$es a text, and if each interpretation chan$es the te$t then how is interpretation of a text more valid than other interpretations; 7f 7 have misunderstood his meanin$, my basic point still stands@ his dismissal of other interpretations is too cavalier.
#L #:

5ee the discussion in the N'T Bible(s note on this verse.

,rthodo$ orru+tion, F!@ 0not only is the phrase Ta phU found in our earliest and best manuscripts of /atthew, it is also necessary on internal $rounds.2
#F C"

Misquoting Jesus, !": +=uoted earlier-.

7bid., F#@ 05cribes found this passa$e difficult@ the 5on of ,od, 4esus himself, does not know when the end will come; ?ow could that be; 7sn(t he allEknowin$; To resolve the problem, some scribes simply modified the text by takin$ out the words Anor even the 5on.( Now the an$els may be i$norant, but the 5on of ,od isn(t.2
C 1odex k, one Hul$ate manuscript, and a few other unnamed witnesses +accordin$ to the apparatus of NestleE%land!L- drop the phrase here. C!

Misquoting Jesus, F#,

", !"9, !"F, !!3 n. F, !!9 n. C.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

not in /ark 3.3!-. %$ain, this important detail is not mentioned in Misquoting Jesus, nor even in ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture. John 1213 7n 4ohn . :b, 'hrman ar$ues that 05on2 instead of 0,od2 is the authentic readin$. But he $oes beyond the evidence by statin$ that if 0,od2 were ori$inal the verse would be callin$ 4esus 0the uni=ue ,od.2 The problem with such a translation, in 'hrman(s words, is that 0MtNhe term unique ,od must refer to ,od the Father himself.otherwise he is not uni=ue. But if the term refers to the Father, how can it be used of the 5on;2C3 'hrman(s sophisticated $rammatical ar$ument for this is not found in Misquoting Jesus, but is detailed in his ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture@ The more common expedient for those who opt for MN cT[TV`[U o`hU, but who reco$ni&e that its renderin$ as 0the uni=ue ,od2 is virtually impossible in a 4ohannine context, is to understand the adKective substantivally, and to construe the entire second half of 4ohn @ : as a series of appositions, so that rather than readin$ 0the uni=ue ,od who is in the bosom of the Father,2 the text should be rendered 0the uni=ue one, who is also ,od, who is in the bosom of the Father.2 There is somethin$ attractive about the proposal. 7t explains what the text mi$ht have meant to a 4ohannine reader and thereby allows for the text of the $enerally superior textual witnesses. Nonetheless, the solution is entirely implausible. 6. 7t is true that cT[TV`[U can elsewhere be used as a substantive +j the uni=ue one, as in v. 9-< all adKectives can. But the proponents of this view have failed to consider that it is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that a$rees with it in $ender, number, and case. 7ndeed one must here press the syntactical point@ when is an adKective e#er used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection; No ,reek reader would construe such a construction as a strin$ of substantives, and no ,reek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowled$e, no one has cited anythin$ analo$ous outside of this passa$e. The result is that takin$ the term cT[TV`[U o`hU as two substantives standin$ in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construin$ their relationship as adKectiveEnoun creates an impossible sense.C9 'hrman(s ar$ument assumes that cT[TV`[U cannot normally be substantival, even thou$h it is so used in v 9.as he admits. There are many criti=ues that could be made of his ar$ument, but chief amon$ them is this@ his absoluti&in$ of the $rammatical situation is incorrect. ?is challen$e +0no one has cited anythin$ analo$ous outside of this passa$e2- is here taken up. There are, indeed, examples in which an adKective that is Kuxtaposed to a noun of the same $rammatical concord is not functionin$ adKectivally but substantivally.C#
C3 C9 C#

Misquoting, C!. 'hrman, ,rthodo$ orru+tion, : .

%nother criticism is that 'hrman has too hastily asserted that cT[TV`[U cannot have the implied force of 0uni=ue son2 as in 0the uni=ue 5on, who is ,od2 +ibid., :"E: -@

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

4ohn C@L"@ bW{ |} ~c[ 9:; <=>?@AB; |S]_[. ?ere a_nTZTU is functionin$ as a noun, even thou$h it is an adKective. %nd `U, the pronominal adKective, is the subKect related to a_nTZTU, the predicate nominative. *om .3"@ bW]WZnZTpU C9@DEFG9H; ~f_S]U IJ9KLM>N@F; ZWzh[WU, |^`pf`]U bWb[, VT[`S_[ OJ9=C9H; +0slanderers, haters o% 0od, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, diso!edient to parents2.true adKectives in italics,al 3@F@ ] J=DEP Q?KR>S +0with %braham, the believer2 as the N%5B has it< N*5H has 0%braham who believed2< N7H has 0%braham, the man of faith2-. *e$ardless of how it is translated, here is an adKective wed$ed between an article and a noun that is functionin$ substantivally, in apposition to the noun. 'ph !@!"@ []TU OTK@GUN=RV@F W]T WK=DE@X YLD@X +01hrist 4esus himself bein$ the chief cornerstone2-@ althou$h bfTVr[_WTU is an adKective, it seems to be functionin$ substantivally here +thou$h it could possibly be a predicate adKective, 7 suppose, as a predicate $enitive-. >54 lists this as an adKective< >N lists it as a noun. 7t may thus be similar to cT[TV`[U in its development. Tim @F@ a_bWs [hcTU T b`]W_, [hcT_U a bW{ [pXT]nb]T_U, S`dS_ bW{ cWf]rZTU, ON@DV@=; bW{ ?9?ZA@=;, JREK@A[R=; bW{ SLEK@A[R=;, [afT^h[T_U +law is not made for a ri$hteous man, but for those who are lawless and re!ellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and +ro%ane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers MadKectives in italicsN-@ this text clearly shows that 'hrman has overstated his
The difficulty with this view is that there is nothin$ about the word cT[TV`[U itself that su$$ests it. Butside of the New Testament the term simply means 0one of a kind2 or 0uni=ue,2 and does so with reference any ran$e of animate or inanimate obKects. Therefore, recourse must be made to its usa$e within the New Testament. ?ere proponents of the view ar$ue that in situ the word implies 0sonship,2 for it always occurs +in the New Testament- either in explicit conKunction with phU or in a context where a phU is named and then described as cT[TV`[U +>uke F@3:, 4ohn @ 9, ?eb @ L-. Nonetheless, as su$$estive as the ar$ument may appear, it contains the seeds of its own refutation@ if the word cT[TV`[U is understood to mean 0a uni=ue son,2 one wonders why it is typically put in attribution to phU, an attribution that then creates an unusual kind of redundancy +0the uni=ueEson son2-. ,iven the fact that neither the etymolo$y of the word nor its $eneral usa$e su$$ests any such meanin$, this solution seems to involve a case of special pleadin$. The problem with this assertion is threefold@ + - 7f in the three texts listed above cT[TV`[U does, in fact, have both a substantival force and involves the implication of sonship, then to ar$ue that this could be the case in 4ohn . : is not an instance of special pleadin$ because there is already clear testimony within the NT of this force. +!- 'hrman(s ar$ument rests on $oin$ outside of biblical ,reek for the normative meanin$ of a term that seemed to have special nuances within the Bible. But since in the NT +?eb . L-.as well as patristic ,reek +see n. C!- and the >kk +cf. 4ud$ .39 where the adKective is used +rior to the noun that speaks of 4ephthah(s dau$hter< Tobit 3. # is similar< cf. also Tobit :. L-.cT[TV`[U often both bears the connotation of Ason( +or child- and is used absolutely +i.e., substantivally-, to ar$ue for a secular force within the Bible looks like special pleadin$. +3- To ar$ue that an implied lexical force becomes 0an unusual kind of redundancy2 when the implication is brou$ht out explicitly in the text re=uires much more nuancin$ before it can be applied as any kind of normative principle@ on its face, and in application to the case in hand, it strikes me as almost wildly untrue. 7n $rammar and lexeme, the NT is filled with examples in which the ebb and flow of implicit and explicit meanin$ intertwine with one another. To take but one example from the $rammatical side@ `SdfmTcW_ `U is a $enerally hellenistic expression in which the increased redundancy +by the doublin$ of the preposition- $ets the point across. 7t is found over :" times in the NT, yet it does not mean 0comeEinto into28 \et, it means the same thin$ as fmTcW_ `U, a phrase that occurs over L" times in the NT. 'n$lish examples readily come to mind as well@ 7n collo=uial speech, we often hear 0foot pedal2 +is there any other kind of pedal besides one for the feet;-.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

case, for `ZT_U does not modify XW]fTZW_U but instead is substantival, as are the %i#e previous descriptive terms. )et @ @ \TA9TE@H; JRK9J=<ZS@=; +0the elect, soKourners2-@ This text is variously interpreted, but our point is simply that it could fit either scheme for 4ohn . :. 7t thus =ualifies for texts of which 'hrman says 0no one has cited anythin$ analo$ous outside of this passa$e.2 ! )et !@#@ |^`sSW]T ZZ ]G<@@N ^_9 a_bW_TSe[RU TZKFTR +0did not spare Mthe worldN, but MpreservedN an ei$hth, Noah, a preacher of ri$hteousness2-. The adKective Aei$hth( stands in apposition to Noah< otherwise, if it modified Noah, the force would be Aan ei$hth Noah( as thou$h there were seven other Noahs8CC 7n li$ht of these examples +which are but a few of those found in the NT-, we can thus respond directly the =uestion that 'hrman poses@ 0when is an adKective e#er used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection;2 ?is remark that 0No ,reek reader would construe such a construction as a strin$ of substantives, and no ,reek writer would create such an inconcinnity2 is simply not borne out by the evidence. %nd we have only looked at a samplin$ of the NT. 7f NT authors can create such expressions, this internal ar$ument a$ainst the readin$ cT[TV`[U o`hU loses considerable wei$ht. 7t now becomes a matter of askin$ whether there are sufficient (onte$tual clues that cT[TV`[U is in fact functionin$ substantivally. 'hrman has already provided both of them@ + - in 4ohn, it is unthinkable that the Word could become the unique ,od in . : +in which he alone, and not the Father, is claimed to have divine status- only to have that status removed repeatedly throu$hout the rest of the ,ospel. Thus, assuming that cT[TV`[U o`hU is authentic, we are in fact almost driven to the sense that 'hrman re$ards as $rammatically implausible but contextually necessary@ 0the uni=ue one, himself ,od62 +!- that cT[TV`[U is already used in v 9 as a substantiveCL becomes the stron$est contextual ar$ument for seein$ its substantival function repeated four verses later. 7mmediately after 'hrman admits that this adKective can be used substantivally and is so used in v 9, he makes his $rammatical ar$ument which is intended to lay the $auntlet down or to shut the coffin lid +choose your clich- on the force of the connection with v 9. But if the $rammatical ar$ument won(t cut it, then the substantival use of cT[TV`[U in v 9 should stand as an important contextual clue. 7ndeed, in li$ht of the wellEworn usa$e in !i!li(al ,reek, we would almost expect cT[TV`[U to be used substantivally and with the implication of sonship in . :. Now, as our only concern here is to wrestle with what cT[TV`[U o`hU would mean i% it were ori$inal, rather than ar$ue for its authenticity, there seems to be sufficient evidence to demonstrate a force such as 0the uni=ue one, himself ,od2 as a suitable $loss for this readin$. Both the internal and external evidence are on its side< the only thin$ holdin$ back such a variant
%dded to my examples are those that a doctoral student at Dallas 5eminary, 5tratton >adewi$, has culled from elsewhere in the NT@ >uke 9. 3< :. < %cts !.#. %s well, he has found several inexact parallels. 5ee his Th./. thesis, 0%n 'xamination of the Brthodoxy of the Hariants in >i$ht of Bart 'hrman(s The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture,2 Dallas 5eminary, !""". % =uick look at >ampe(s Patristi( 0ree' "e$i(on also reveals that the substantival function of this adKective was commonplace@ :: , def. L, the term is used absolutely in a host of patristic writers.
CL CC

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

is the interpretation that it was a modalistic readin$.C: But the basis for that is a $rammatical assumption that we have demonstrated not to have wei$ht. 7n conclusion, both cT[TV`[U phU and cT[TV`[U o`hU fit comfortably within orthodoxy< no seismic theolo$ical shift occurs if one were to pick one readin$ over the other. %lthou$h some modern translations have been persuaded by 'hrman(s ar$ument here +such as the ?15B-, the ar$ument is hardly airti$ht. When either variant is examined carefully, both are seen to be within the realm of orthodox teachin$. 5uffice it to say that if 0,od2 is authentic here, it is hardly necessary to translate the phrase as 0the uni=ue ,od,2 as thou$h that mi$ht imply that 4esus alone is ,od. *ather, as the N'T renders it +see also the N7H and N*5H-, 4ohn . : says, 0No one has ever seen ,od. The only one, himsel% 0od, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made ,od known.2 7n other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theolo$y of the NT is overstated at best.CF Onfortunately, as careful a scholar as 'hrman is, his treatment of maKor theolo$ical chan$es in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms@ 'ither his textual decisions are wron$, or his interpretation is wron$. These criticisms were made of his earlier work, ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. For example, ,ordon Fee said of this work that 0MuNnfortunately, 'hrman too often turns mere +ossi!ility into +ro!a!ility, and probability into (ertainty, where other e=ually viable reasons for corruption exist.2L" \et, the conclusions that 'hrman put forth in ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture are still offered in Misquoting Jesus without reco$nition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first $oEaround.L For a book $eared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theolo$ical wei$ht that he says is on the line. Bne almost $ets the impression that he is encoura$in$ the 1hicken >ittles in the 1hristian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time a$ain in the book, hi$hly char$ed statements are put
'hrman is not alto$ether clear in his ar$ument that mono$enh<H =eov was an antiEadoptionistic readin$. 7f his construal of the meanin$ of the text is correct, it looks more modalistic than orthodox. \et, since its pedi$ree is solidly %lexandrian, it would seem to $o back to an archetype that antedated the roots of the 5abellian heresy. 7n other words, the motivations for the readin$, assumin$ 'hrman(s interpretation, are muddied at best. For the case that the NT speaks clearly of 1hrist(s deity, see Gomos&ewski, 5awyer, and Wallace, Rein#enting Jesus. ,ordon D. Fee, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture in riti(al Re#iew o% Boo's in Religion : + FF#- !"9. 5ee 4. G. 'lliott, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament, by Bart D. 'hrman, in &o#T 3C.9 + FF9-@ 9"#I"C< /ichael W. ?olmes, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament, by Bart D. 'hrman, in RelSRe# !".3 + FF9-@ !3L< ,ordon D. Fee, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament, by Bart D. 'hrman, in RBR : + FF#-@ !"3I"C< Bruce /. /et&$er, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament , by Bart D. 'hrman, in PSB #.! + FF9-@ ! "I !< David 1. )arker, review of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament , by Bart D. 'hrman, in JTS 9#.! + FF9-@ L"9I":< 4. N. Birdsall, *eview of The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture: The /%%e(t o% /arly hristologi(al ontro#ersies on the Te$t o% the &ew Testament, by Bart D. 'hrman, in Theology FL.L:" + FF9-@ 9C"EC!< 7vo Tamm* Theologis(h2 (hristologis(he >arianten in der %r?hen @!erlie%erung des &euen TestamentsA +/a$isterschrift, Westflische WilhelmsEOniversitt /unster, n.d.-< 5tratton >adewi$, 0%n 'xamination of the Brthodoxy of the Hariants in >i$ht of Bart 'hrman(s The ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture2 +Th./. thesis, Dallas 5eminary, !"""-.
L L" CF C:

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift throu$h. %nd that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. *e$ardin$ the evidence, suffice it to say that signi%i(ant te$tual #ariants that alter (ore do(trines o% the &T ha#e not yet !een +rodu(ed. \et 'hrman apparently thinks they have. When discussin$ Wettstein(s views of the NT text, 'hrman notes that 0Wettstein be$an thinkin$ seriously about his own theolo$ical convictions, and became attuned to the problem that the New Testament rarely, i% e#er, actually calls 4esus ,od.2L! *emarkably, 'hrman seems to represent this conclusion as not only Wettstein(s, but his own, too. To the extent that Wettstein was movin$ toward the modern critical text and away from the TR, his ar$uments a$ainst the deity of 1hrist were unfounded because 1hrist(s deity is actually more clearly seen in the critical ,reek text than in the TR.L3 %lthou$h 'hrman does not discuss most of the passa$es that he thinks are spurious, he does do so in ,rthodo$ orru+tion o% S(ri+ture +especially !C9EL3-. But the discussion is not really fleshed out and involves internal contradictions. 7n short, he doesn(t make out his case. The deity of 1hrist is undisturbed by any viable variants. (irst John `2a43 Finally, re$ardin$ 4ohn #.LI:, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the 0Trinitarian formula,2 since scholars for (enturies have reco$ni&ed it as added later. Bnly a few very late manuscripts have the verses. Bne wonders why this passa$e is even discussed in 'hrman(s book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passa$e made its way into our Bibles throu$h political pressure, appearin$ for the first time in #!!, even thou$h scholars then and now knew that it was not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the 1ouncil of 1onstantinople in %D 3: explicitly affirmed the Trinity8 ?ow could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn(t $et into the ,reek NT for another millennium; 1onstantinople(s statement was not written in a vacuum@ the early church put into a theolo$ical formulation what they $ot out of the NT. % distinction needs to be made here@ Kust because a +arti(ular verse does not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT. 7n this case, anyone with an understandin$ of the healthy patristic debates over the ,odhead knows that the early church arrived at their understandin$ from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts of 4ohn #.L only summari8ed what they found< it did not in%orm their declarations.

Conclusion
7n sum, 'hrman(s latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes up short on $enuine substance about his primary contention. 7 be$ your indul$ence as 7 reflect on two pastoral points here. First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in carin$ for ,od(s people. 5cholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little
L! L3

Misquoting Jesus,

9 +italics added-.

5ee, e.$., D. %. 1arson, 1ing James >ersion De!ate M,rand *apids@ Baker, FLFN, C9-.

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

understandin$ of. 7ndeed, even a$nostic teachers bear this responsibility. Onfortunately, the avera$e layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far $reater doubts about the wordin$ and teachin$s of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. % $ood teacher doesn(t hold back on tellin$ his students what(s what, but he also knows how to packa$e the material so they don(t let emotion $et in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creatin$ as much panic and alarm as The Da >in(i ode. 7s that really the peda$o$ical effect 'hrman was seekin$; 7 have to assume that he knew what kind of a reaction he would $et from this book, for he does not chan$e the impression at all in his interviews. Bein$ provocative, even at the risk of bein$ misunderstood, seems to be more important to him than bein$ honest even at the risk of bein$ borin$. But a $ood teacher does not create 1hicken >ittles.L9 5econd, what 7 tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. %nd they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distin$uishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines starts to erode, it creates a domino effect@ Bne falls down, they all fall down. 7t strikes me that somethin$ like this may be what happened to Bart 'hrman. ?is testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a $lib comment from one of his conservative professors at )rinceton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, 'hrman(s faith be$an to crumble. Bne domino crashed into another until eventually he became Aa fairly happy a$nostic.( 7 may be wron$ about 'hrman(s own spiritual Kourney, but 7 have known too many students who have $one in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investi$ation of the text of the Bible with bibliolo$ical presuppositions often speak of a Aslippery slope( on which all theolo$ical convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy $oes, everythin$ else be$ins to erode. 7 would say rather that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that(s when one $ets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupyin$ the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challen$ed, this does not have a si$nificant impact on the core. 7n other words, the evan$elical community will continue to produce liberal scholars until we learn to nuance our faith commitments a bit more, until we learn to see 1hrist as the center of our lives and scripture as that which points to him. 7f our startin$ point is embracin$ propositional truths about the nature of scripture rather than personally embracin$ 4esus 1hrist as our >ord and Gin$, we(ll be on that slippery slope, and we(ll take a lot of folks down with us. 7 $rieve for what has happened to an ac=uaintance of mine, a man 7 have known and admired .and continue to admire.for over a =uarter of a century. 7t $ives me no Koy to put forth this review. But from where 7 sit, it seems that Bart(s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slo$$ed throu$h the years and trials of life and learnin$, even when he came out on the other side of the theolo$ical spectrum. ?e still sees thin$s without sufficient nuancin$, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are ri$ht. Bart 'hrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics 7(ve ever

%lthou$h 'hrman(s Misquoting Jesus may well be the first lay introduction to New Testament textual criticism, in the sprin$ of !""C a second book that deals with these issues +and some others- is to be released. 5ee Gomos&ewski, 5awyer, and Wallace, Rein#enting Jesus, for a more balanced treatment of the data.

L9

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006

known, and yet his biases are so stron$ that, at times, he cannot even acknowled$e them.L# 4ust months before Misquoting Jesus appeared, the fourth edition of /et&$er(s Te$t o% the &ew Testament was published. The first three editions were written solely by /et&$er and bore the title The Te$t o% the &ew Testament: )ts Transmission* orru+tion* and Restoration . The fourth edition, now coEauthored with 'hrman, makes such a title seem almost disin$enuous. The reader of Misquoting Jesus mi$ht be tempted to think that the subtitle of /et&$er(s fourth edition should have been called simply )ts Transmission and orru+tion.LC

7 am reminded of /artin ?en$el(s insi$ht about the parallel dan$ers from 0an uncritical, sterile apolo$etic fundamentalism2 and 0from no less sterile Acritical i$norance(2 of radical liberalism. %t bottom, the approaches are the same< the only differences are the presuppositions +/artin ?en$el, Studies in /arly hristology M'dinbur$h@ T l T 1lark, FF#N, #LI#:-. 7 am not sayin$ that 'hrman is there, but he no lon$er seems to be the true liberal that he once aspired to be. 7t should be noted that Misquoting Jesus is dedicated to Bruce /et&$er, whom 'hrman describes as 0the world(s leadin$ expert in the field Mof NT textual criticismN2 +Misquoting, L-. \et /et&$er would fundamentally disa$ree with 'hrman(s thesis in this book.
LC

L#

The Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org)

Summer 2006