Trekking through Misquoting Jesus

I have been reading through Philip Jenkins’ The Lost History of Christianity. It’s been a mostly enjoyable read, minus a couple minor issues I have with it so far. I believe I’ve reached the meat of the book, starting the explanation behind the dramatic demise of Christianity in the East and Africa. But, our library got in Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted. I have a feeling those will be requested soon, barring me from extending the checkout, so I decided to pause my Jenkins read and tear through Ehrman’s books first.

I’ve listened to Ehrman in debates and interviews, but have not read any of his works yet: academic, popular (e.g. these two books would fall under that classification) or otherwise. I am familiar with what his conclusions are, but wanted to wrestle through his evidence and argumentation. From what I have listened to, I agree with many of his points, and think he makes a lot of valid, challenging observations.

So far in Misquoting Jesus (I’m just shy of starting chapter 2) Ehrman has given a sensible summary of the early development of the canon and of the Church using written works as authoritative. Much of it I said myself in the Church History class I led last year. But there are some areas I’ve found that sort of bring out the idea that he might be keeping some (possibly) important information from the readers—at least in my mind.

For example, on page 23, first full paragraph, Ehrman talked a little about people writing epistles using the name of an Apostle. In the example, Colossians is “allegedly pseudonymous.” And in Colossians, the author wrote about “the letter written to Laodicea” (Col. iv.16). Ehrman concluded

Evidently Paul—either himself, or someone writing in his name—wrote a letter to the nearby town of Laodicea. This letter too has been lost.

He included a footnote at the end of that passage. The footnote (#6, found on page 220) talked about a couple of forged letters that showed up later on that tried to hold the stature of this lost epistle. What I did was note this case down in the back of my mind. And, yes, here on this blog. What has been bugging me about it is where is the discussion about the letter known as Ephesians possibly (likely?) being that letter to Laodicea? Why is that omitted entirely from the footnote? Why was he limiting the information given to his audience of mostly non-students of textual criticism? Why were we left with the idea of only two options: the letter from the mighty apostle Paul, Scripture as much as his other epistles, either should have been preserved or was totally lost?

He was trying to build his particular case. To Ehrman, there is a big problem with the reliability of the Bible. The matter goes beyond infallibility and inerrancy; we’re talking whether or not anyone can trust anything written in the Scriptures. So it seems to me he has a plan to limit the evidence and argumentation to the information that will swiftly promote (even in subtle ways) his case. I think this particular example was subtle. He could have very easily added another line to the footnote that mentioned the other various possibilities for the epistle to Laodicea.

Then I came to this little passage:

In any event, Jesus’s teachings were soon seen to be as authoritative as the pronouncements of Moses—that is, those of the Torah itself. This becomes even more clear later in the New Testament period, in the book of 1 Timothy, allegedly by Paul but frequently taken by scholars to have been written in his name by a later follower. In 1 Tim. 5:18 the author is urging his readers to pay those who minister among them, and supports his exhortation by quoting “the scripture.” . . .

. . . Evidence comes in the final book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously. (pg. 31, emphasis mine)

Key into what I have italicized: scholars and most critical scholars. That is all well and good. It’s good to bring in the support of scholars not yourself. The problem is he never mentioned even one of the scholars or one source where we might look into that. Ehrman left no footnote anywhere near these passages. Why not mention a couple, especially when you are talking about “most” of them? Would not a reader take a little extra interest in checking out that information on 2 Peter or 1 Timothy? The term “scholar” is as subjective these days as are “good” or “essential.” Alone this is a minor issue. But add it to the last one, and some other parts of the story not being told, and you start to see a trend.

Now, I know full well there is a major underlying problem, and Ehrman is playing off of that problem perfectly. I’m talking about the enormous amount of ignorance and apathy from a great many in the Church when it comes to the Bible. I don’t mean people not reading their Bibles and/or not understanding it. I don’t mean they don’t pay attention to their pastors and Sunday School teachers. I mean there is no education ongoing about the history of the Bible, the story behind the Scriptures. I posed a course on the history of the Bible as a possible Sunday School class at our church come the winter and that idea was shunned. When I covered the topic of how the Bible developed in the Church History course, I did not have the time to handle the subject. The Sunday morning services have not (and will not) cover these issues. I’ve encountered the same sort of experience in the various churches I’ve been a part of during my (relatively short) time. And I am well aware of others—friends or folks I’ve read from or listened to who’ve happened to touch on this lack of instruction (e.g. a recent interview with Daniel Wallace)—who have experienced the same thing.

Getting back to Bart Ehrman’s book, I have found a lot of good points in there. The discussion of the canon, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Athanasius, for instance (pp. 33-36), was a simple and astute summary. Surely he left out more of the story, but he’s not wrong.

The book is an easy read, and I’m able to move along fairly quickly. And that’s in spite of my notoriously slow reading. Takes me way too long to read a stinkin’ book. Anyway, I look forward to getting into his discussion of the scribes and the specific problem areas he comes up with. Of course, all of this leading perfectly into his latest, Jesus Interrupted.