MisquotingTwo

SIX & SEVEN: Luke 2:33 and 2:43

Here Dr. Ehrman advocates variants which have been adopted in most major English translations for over a century. Dr. Ehrman's
contention that the change from "His father and mother" to "Joseph and His mother" was doctrinally motivated is correct. However, readers
would be misled if they concluded that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was established because of these alterations. (Again, the book's
dust-jacket encourages that.)

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is plainly taught in the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke. To Luke, it was not problematic to refer to
Joseph as Jesus' father after establishing that the relationship was adoptive rather than genetic. When Jerome compiled the Vulgate - the
official latin text used by the Roman Catholic Church - he did not adopt the alterations in Lk. 2:33 and 2:43 that are mentioned by Dr.
Ehrman on p. 158. That's right: the official text compiled in 383 for church-use supports "his father and his mother" in Luke 2:33, and "his
parents did not know about it" in Luke 2:43, and "Your father and I" in Luke 2:48.

When Dr. Ehrman ascribed a variant in Lk. 2:48 to "some scribes," he did not burden his readers with the knowledge that this reading has
very slender support.

EIGHT: Hebrews 2:9

On pages 144-148, Dr. Ehrman advocates the reading "without God" instead of the reading "by the grace of God" in Hebrews 2:9. As was
the case in Mark 1:41, Dr. Ehrman rejects the reading which has the evidence from chronology, number, witness-quality, and genealogical
diversity on its side. The reading "by the grace of God" is in the oldest manuscripts, it is in the vast majority of manuscripts, it is in the
manuscripts which are generally regarded as the best-copied manuscripts, and it is found in multiple transmission-streams, but he still
considers it unoriginal.

Dr. Ehrman affirms that the variant he advocates "occurs in only two documents of the tenth century" (p. 145). Once again, readers are not
told important details about the manuscripts; Dr. Ehrman just informs the reader, "I don't need to go into detail." This seems to be the case
whenever details pose problems for the case that Dr. Ehrman is trying to make. The detail that these two manuscripts (1739 and 0243) are
exceptionally closely related is not minor!

In the course of analyzing this variant-unit, Dr. Ehrman raised a question which should be addressed. It is a recurring question in textual
criticism: which is more likely: that a scribe "produced a statement, even by accident, that is bizarre and troubling or one that is familiar and
easy?" The easy answer is that scribes would tend to produce the less difficult reading, but the real answer is that the easy answer is a
generalization, and it really depends upon the skill and character of the scribe, his circumstances, and other factors which we have no way
to gauge. We can't observe the scribe and his surroundings. But we can observe the overwhelming strength of the external evidence in
favor of "chariti theou," and it would be reckless to allow a made-up scenario, however conceivable, to outweigh such strong testimony.

It is also reckless to exaggerate the evidence. Dr. Ehrman stated on p. 145, "Origen tells us that this was the reading of the majority of
manuscripts of his own day." Origen made no such explicit statement. He only said that "chariti theou" is found "in some copies of the
Epistle to the Hebrews;" he did not claim to offer the results of a manuscript-census.

On p. 147, Dr. Ehrman attempted to discount a simple explanation of the origin of the "choris theou" variant. The explanation - offered by
Dr. Bruce Metzger years ago - is that a copyist wrote the words "choris theou" in the margin beside Hebrews 2:8, as an explanatory
clarification, so as to help future interpreters of the text understand that when Hebrews 2:8 says that "all things" were put in subjection to the
Son of Man, the things put in subjection do not include God Himself. Subsequently a copyist misunderstood the comment-note as a
correction-note, and inserted it in the following verse, removing chariti theou and inserting choris theou in its place. That explanation
accounts for the choris (meaning "without" or "apart from") variant quite adequately, despite Dr. Ehrman's rhetoric-heavy attempts on p.
147 to diminish its appeal. Dr. Ehrman seems to have been so eager to undermine this solution that he misquoted First Corinthians 15:27 in
the course of making his objections. He refers to "EKTOS THEOU - the phrase that actually occurs in the I Corinthians passage." But
there's a problem: that phrase doesn't occur in I Cor. 15:27.

Also, Dr. Ehrman states that "There is no manuscript that attests both readings in the text (i.e., the correction in the margin or text of verse
8, where it would belong, and the original text of verse 9)." Considering how sparse the evidence for choris is to begin with, that would not
be at all surprising. However, in manuscript 424, "chariti" was originally in the text, and a medieval revisor changed this to "choris."

NINE: Luke 3:22

On pages 158-161, Dr. Ehrman proposed that Luke wrote that when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven said "You are my Son,
today I have begotten you" instead of "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." Dr. Ehrman told readers that "the
manuscripts of Luke's Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said." But here is how the Greek manuscripts are divided:
Codex Bezae supports "You are my Son; today I have begotten you," and ALL THE REST (including Papyrus 75, which is usually
identified as a manuscript from the late second century) support "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased" or something like it.

Dr. Ehrman proposes that copyists changed the text so that Adoptionists could not use it to support their teaching that Jesus became the
Son of God when he was baptized. A few questions are in order, such as, What evidence does Dr. Ehrman have that Adoptionists ever
actually used this variant in this way? Do any patristic writers ever charge Adoptionists with misusing this particular text? How does Dr.
Ehrman explain the scribes' decision to use text from Mark 1:11 as a replacement-text rather than from the more popular Matthew 3:17?

There is a simple explanation for the allegedly unorthodox variant here. Dr. Ehrman said on page 159, "Scribes typically try to harmonize
texts rather than take them out of harmony." And a harmonization is what has happened here: an early copyist harmonized the text of Luke
3:22 to the text of Psalm 2:7 as it appears in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, in the
second part of Psalm 2:7, we find precisely the words which are displayed in Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae:

Codex Bezae: uios mou ei su, egw shmeron gegennhka se.

Septuagint: uios mou ei su, egw shmeron gegennhka se.

I think that speaks for itself.

TEN: First Cor. 14:34-35

On pages 183-184, Dr. Ehrman proposed that First Corinthians 14:34-35 (which contains Paul's instruction that women should be silent in
the churches) was not written by Paul, and was added to the text by a copyist. Dr. Ehrman really had his work cut out for him here, since
this passage is included in every existing Greek manuscript of First Corinthians. But apparently 100% Greek attestation is not good enough.

Dr. Ehrman basically condensed the case presented by Dr. Gordon Fee in his commentary on First Corinthians years ago. However, Dr.
Fee's case is gently dismantled by Dr. D.A. Carson in chapter six of Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, which can be read
online. In the meantime I am content to just mention that the reason why Dr. Ehrman considers these two verses "anomalous" with other
statements in First Corinthians might be that he hasn't interpreted them correctly.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Misquoting Jesus is not so much an introduction to New Testament textual criticism as it is a skewed defense of Dr. Ehrman's agnosticism
and his speculations about "orthodox corruptions." His work is characterized by selective and partial descriptions of the evidence. Far
better books on New Testament textual criticism are available.

THE END

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Dr. Ehrman mentioned a difficulty in the interpretation of Mark 2:26 which contributed to his current agnosticism: why does Mark describe
Abiathar, who was visited by David when he was running away from Saul, as the high priest, when the high priest at the time was
Ahimelech? There are at least three potential solutions: (1) Jesus was not alluding to Abiathar personally, but was using a chapter-title for
an Old Testament chapter colloquially known as "The High Priesthood of Abiathar." In Mark 12:26, the same sort of thing occurs when
Jesus refers to "The Bush." (2) Jesus and His contemporaries were aware that Abiathar was actually serving as the high priest; Abiathar's
father Ahimelech had been disqualified from active service due to some physical infirmity, in accordance with Leviticus 21:18-23. Priests in
this condition were still allowed to eat the sacred bread. (3) The designation of Abiathar as high priest was intended to be understood as a
retroactively assigned title.

On page 91, the term "parablepsis" is twice misspelled as "periblepsis."

On page 91, Dr. Ehrman claims that the nomen sacrum for the word "Pneuma" ("Spirit") is PMA, but (as Dr. Maurice Robinson has
pointed out) this is not true, and this destroys the theory he advocates there.

On p. 133 and 134, the transliteration of the Greek word for "feeling compassionate" is incorrect.

On p. 159, the reference to Luke 3:23 should be changed to Luke 3:22.

On p. 160, both references to Acts 2:38 should be changed to Acts 2:36. (Dr. Ehrman misinterprets this passage, its focus is not Christ's
resurrection but His ascension and heavenly enthronement.)

The Hebrew text on the cover is upside-down.

The third paragraph of this book's blurb is sensationalistic, misleading, and false.

The book MISQUOTING JESUS: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, is Copyrighted � 2005 by Bart D. Ehrman. Publisher: HarperCollins,
New York.