The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
The heart of Misquoting Jesus is chapters 5, 6, and 7. Here Ehrman especially discusses the results of the findings in his major work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.16 His concluding chapter closes in on the point he is driving at in this section: “It would be wrong…to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case.”17
Cardinal Doctrines Affected by Textual Variants?
In chapters 5 and 6, Ehrman discusses several passages that involve variants allegedly affecting core theological beliefs. He summarizes his findings in his concluding chapter as follows:
In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man [Mark 1:41]? Was he completely distraught in the face of death [Heb. 2:8–9]? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed [Mark 16:9–20]? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning [John 7:53–8:11]? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament [1 John 5:7–8]? Is Jesus actually called “the unique God” there [John 1:18]? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come [Matt. 24:36]? The questions go 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.18
Such a summary is intended to focus on the major problem passages that Ehrman has uncovered. Thus, following the well-worn rabbinic principle of a maiore ad minus,19 or arguing from the greater to the lesser, we will address just these seven texts.
The Problem with Problem Passages
Three of these passages have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholars, including most evangelical NT scholars, for well over a century (Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; and 1 John 5:7–8).20 Yet Ehrman writes as though the excision of such texts could shake up our theological convictions. Such is hardly the case. (We will suspend discussion of one of these passages, 1 John 5:7–8, until the end.)
The last twelve verses of Mark and the pericope adulterae. At the same time Ehrman implicitly raises a valid issue. A glance at virtually any English Bible today reveals that the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae are to be found in their usual places. Thus, not only do the KJV and NKJV have these passages (as would be expected), but so do the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and NET. Yet the scholars who produced these translations by and large do not subscribe to the authenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enough: they don't show up in the oldest and best manuscripts, and their internal evidence is decidedly against authenticity.21 Why then are they still in these Bibles?
The answer to this question varies. For some they seem to be in the Bibles because of a tradition of timidity. There are seemingly good reasons for this. The rationale is typically that no one will buy a particular version if it lacks these famous passages. And if they don't buy the version, it can't influence Christians. Some translations have included the pericope adulterae because of a mandate from the papal authorities declaring the passage to be Scripture. The NEB and REB include it at the end of the Gospels rather than in its traditional location. The TNIV and NET have both passages in a smaller font with brackets around them. (Smaller type makes it harder to read from the pulpit.) The NET adds a lengthy discussion about the inauthenticity of the verses. Most translations mention that these pericopae are not found in the oldest manuscripts, but such a comment is rarely noticed by readers today. How do we know this? From the shock waves produced by Ehrman's book. In radio, TV, and newspaper interviews with Ehrman, the story of the woman caught in adultery is almost always the first text brought up as inauthentic, and the mention is calculated to alarm the audience.
Nevertheless, Ehrman has done a great service to the church by exposing the public to the inauthenticity of Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. Strong emotional baggage is especially attached to the latter text. For years it was my favorite passage that was not in the Bible. I would even preach on it as true historical narrative, even after I rejected its literary/canonical authenticity. And we all know of preachers who can't give it up even though they, too, have doubts about it. But there are two problems with this approach. First, in terms of popularity between these two texts, John 8 is the overwhelming favorite, yet its external credentials are significantly worse than Mark 16's. The same preacher who declares the Markan passage to be inauthentic extols the virtues of John 8. This inconsistency is appalling. Something is amiss in our theological seminaries when one's feelings are allowed to be the arbiter of textual problems. Second, the pericope adulterae is most likely not even historically true, at least in all its details. It was probably a story conflated from two different accounts.22 Thus, the argument that one can proclaim it because the story really happened is apparently not completely valid.
In retrospect, keeping these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than relegating them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb just waiting to explode. All Ehrman did was to light the fuse. One lesson we must learn from Misquoting Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the gap between the church and the academy. Professors and pastors have to educate believers. Instead of trying to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be ready for the barrage because it is coming.23 The intentional dumbing down of the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection from Christ. Ehrman is to be thanked for giving us a wake-up call.
Not everything Ehrman has written in this book is of that ilk, but these three passages are. Again, we need to stress: these texts change no fundamental doctrine, no core belief. Evangelical scholars have rejected them as spurious for more than a century without disturbing one iota of orthodoxy.
The remaining four textual problems, however, tell a different story. Ehrman appeals either to an interpretation or to evidence that most scholars consider, at best, doubtful.
Hebrews 2:8–9. Translations are roughly united in how they treat Heb 2:9b. The NET is representative: “By God's grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.” Ehrman suggests that “by God's grace,” chariti theou, is a secondary reading. Instead, he argues that “apart from God,” or chōris theou, is what the author originally wrote. Only three Greek manuscripts have this reading, all from the tenth century or later. Codex 1739, however, is one of them, and it is a copy of an early and decent manuscript. Chōris theou is also found in several fathers, one Vulgate manuscript, and some copies of the Peshitta.24 Many scholars would dismiss such paltry evidence without further ado. If they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because even though it has a poor pedigree, chōris theou is the harder reading and thus may require some explanation since scribes tended to smooth out the wording of the text. As well, something needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a reading is an unintentional change, the canon of the harder reading is invalid. The hardest reading will be a nonsense reading, something that cannot be created on purpose. Although chōris is apparently the harder reading, it can be explained as an accidental alteration. It may be due either to a “scribal lapse”25 in which an inattentive copyist confused chōris for chariti, or “a marginal gloss” in which a scribe was thinking of 1 Cor 15:27 which, like Heb 2:8, quotes Ps 8:6 in reference to God's subjection of all things to Christ.26
Without going into the details of Ehrman's defense of chōris, we simply wish to note four things. First, he overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct. After three pages of discussion of this text in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he pronounces the verdict: “The external evidence notwithstanding, Hebrews 2:9 must have originally said that Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”27 Second, Ehrman's text-critical views are getting dangerously close to rigorous eclecticism.28 The external data seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to want to see theological corruption in the text. Third, even though he is certain about his verdict, his late mentor, Bruce Metzger, was not. A year after Orthodox Corruption was published, Metzger's second edition of his Textual Commentary appeared. The United Bible Society (UBS) committee still gave the chariti theou reading the palm, but this time upgrading their conviction to an “A” rating. Finally, even assuming that chōris theou is the correct reading here, Ehrman has not made out a case that this is a variant that “affect[s] the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”29 He argues that “[t] he less attested reading is also more consistent with the theology of Hebrews.”30 He adds that the author “repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of God. His sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. Moreover, God did not intervene in his passion and did nothing to minimize his pain. Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”31 If this is the view of Jesus throughout Hebrews, how does the variant Ehrman adopts in 2:9 change that portrait? In his Orthodox Corruption, Ehrman says that “Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus, in the face of death, beseeching God with loud cries and tears.”32 But that this text is speaking of Jesus “in the face of death” is not at all clear (nor does Ehrman defend this view). Further, he builds on this in his concluding chapter of Misquoting Jesus—even though he has never established the point—when he asks, “Was [Jesus] completely distraught in the face of death?”33 He goes even further in Orthodox Corruption. I am at a loss to understand how Ehrman can claim that the author of Hebrews seems to know “of passion traditions in which Jesus was terrified in the face of death”34 unless it is by connecting three dots, all of which are dubious—viz., reading chōris theou in Heb 2:9, seeing 5:7 as referring principally to the death of Christ and that His prayers were principally for Himself,35 and then regarding the loud cries there to reflect his terrified state. Ehrman seems to be building his case on linked hypotheses, which is a poor foundation at best.
Mark 1:41. In the first chapter of Mark's Gospel, a leper approaches Jesus and asks Him to heal him: “If you are willing, you can make me clean” (Mark 1:40 NIV). Jesus' response is recorded in the Nestle-Aland text as follows: kai splagchnistheis ekteinas tēn cheira auto ēpsato kai legei autō, Thelō, katharisthēti (“and moved with compassion, he stretched out [his] hand and touched him and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed”). Instead of splagchnistheis (“moved with compassion”) a few Western witnesses36 read orgistheis (“becoming angry”). Jesus' motivation for this healing apparently hangs in the balance. Even though the UBS4 gives splagchnistheis a B rating, an increasing number of exegetes are starting to argue for the authenticity of orgistheis. In a Festschrift for Gerald Hawthorne in 2003, Ehrman made an impressive argument for its authenticity.37 Four years earlier, a doctoral dissertation by Mark Proctor was written in defense of orgistheis.38 The reading has also made its way into the TNIV and is seriously entertained in the NET. We won't take the time to consider the arguments here. At this stage I am inclined to think it is most likely original. Either way, for the sake of argument, assuming that the “angry” reading is authentic, what does this tell us about Jesus that we didn't know before?
Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus' anger in this passage, it changes our picture of Jesus in Mark significantly. In fact, this textual problem is his lead example in chapter 5 (“Originals That Matter”), a chapter whose central thesis is that some variants “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”39 This thesis is overstated in general and particularly for Mark's Gospel. In Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry, wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. And in Mark 10:14 He is indignant at His disciples.
Ehrman, of course, knows this. In fact, he argues implicitly in the Hawthorne Festschrift that Jesus' anger in Mark 1:41 perfectly fits into the picture that Mark elsewhere paints of Jesus. He says, for example, “Mark described Jesus as angry, and, at least in this instance, scribes took offense. This comes as no surprise; apart from a fuller understanding of Mark's portrayal, Jesus' anger is difficult to understand.”40 Ehrman even lays out the fundamental principle that he sees running through Mark: “Jesus is angered when anyone questions his authority or ability to heal—or his desire to heal.”41 Now, for sake of argument, let's assume that not only is Ehrman's textual reconstruction correct, but his interpretation of orgistheis in Mark 1:41 is correct—not only in that passage but in the totality of Mark's presentation of Jesus.42 If so, how then does an angry Jesus in 1:41 “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament”? According to Ehrman's own interpretation, orgistheis only strengthens the image we see of Jesus in this Gospel by making it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his anger. If this reading is exhibit A in Ehrman's fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little to alter the overall portrait of Jesus that Mark paints. Here is another instance, then, in which Ehrman's theological conclusion is more provocative than the evidence suggests.
Matthew 24:36. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks about the time of His own return. Remarkably, He confesses that He does not know exactly when that will be. In most modern translations of Matt 24:36, the text basically says, “But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son [oude ho huios]—except the Father alone.” However, many manuscripts, including some early and important ones, lack oude ho huios. Whether “nor the Son” is authentic is disputed.43 Nevertheless, Ehrman again speaks confidently on the issue.44 The importance of this textual variant for the thesis of Misquoting Jesus cannot be overestimated. Ehrman alludes to Matt 24:36 in his conclusion, apparently to underscore his argument that textual variants alter basic doctrines.45 His initial discussion of this passage certainly leaves this impression as well.46 But if he does not mean this, then he is writing more provocatively than is necessary, misleading his readers. And if he does mean it, he has overstated his case.
What is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32: “But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.”47 Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of His own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one's basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark. Not once in Misquoting Jesus does Ehrman mention Mark 13:32, even though he explicitly discusses Matt 24:36 at least six times, to the effect that this reading impacts our fundamental understanding of Jesus.48 But does the wording change our basic understanding of Matthew's view of Jesus? Even that is not the case. Even if Matt 24:36 originally lacked “nor the Son,” the fact that the Father alone (ei mē ho patēr monos) has this knowledge certainly implies the Son's ignorance (and the “alone” is only found in Matt 24:36, not in Mark 13:32). Again, this important detail is not mentioned in Misquoting Jesus or even in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
John 1:18. In John 1:18b, Ehrman argues that “Son” instead of “God” is the authentic reading. But he goes beyond the evidence by stating that if “God” were original the verse would be calling Jesus “the unique God.” The problem with such a translation, in Ehrman's words, is that “the term unique God must refer to God the Father himself—otherwise he is not unique. But if the term refers to the Father, how can it be used of the Son?”49 Ehrman's sophisticated grammatical argument for this is not found in Misquoting Jesus but is detailed in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture:
The more common expedient for those who opt for [(ho) monogenēs theos], but who recognize that its rendering as “the unique God” is virtually impossible in a Johannine context, is to understand the adjective substantivally [i.e., as a noun],…so that…the text should be rendered “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father.”
.…It is true that monogenēs can elsewhere be used as a substantive (= the unique one, as in v. 14); all adjectives 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 agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must here press the syntactical point: when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?…
The result is that taking the term monogenēs theos as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun creates an impossible sense.50
Ehrman's argument assumes that monogenēs cannot normally be substantival, even though it is so used in verse 14, as he admits. Many critiques could be made of his argument, but chief among them is this: his absolutizing of the grammatical situation is incorrect. His challenge (“no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage”) was taken up by Stratton Ladewig, in a master's thesis at Dallas Seminary, as well as in an article I wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.51 Suffice it to say here that there are, indeed, several examples in which an adjective that is juxtaposed to a noun of the same grammatical concord is not functioning adjectivally but substantivally.
Ehrman argues: “No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity.”52 However, this assertion is simply not borne out by the evidence.53 But if NT authors can create such expressions, this internal argument against the reading monogenēs theos loses considerable weight.
It now becomes a matter of asking whether there are sufficient contextual clues that monogenēs is in fact functioning substantivally. Ehrman has already provided both of them: (1) In John, it is unthinkable that the Word could become the unique God in 1:18 (in which He alone, and not the Father, is claimed to have divine status) only to have that status removed repeatedly throughout the rest of the Gospel. Thus, assuming that monogenēs theos is authentic, we are in fact almost driven to the sense that Ehrman regards as grammatically implausible but contextually necessary: “the unique one, himself God…” (2) That monogenēs is already used in verse 14 as a substantive54 becomes the strongest contextual argument for seeing its substantival function repeated four verses later. Immediately after Ehrman admits that this adjective can be used substantivally and is so used in verse 14, he makes his grammatical argument, which is intended to shut the coffin lid on the force of the connection with verse 14. But if the grammatical argument won't cut it, then the substantival use of monogenēs in verse 14 should stand as an important contextual clue. Indeed, in light of the well-worn usage in biblical Greek, we would almost expect monogenēs to be used substantivally and with the implication of sonship in 1:18.
Now, as our only concern here is to wrestle with what monogenēs theos would mean if it were original, rather than argue for its authenticity, there seems to be sufficient evidence to demonstrate a force such as “the unique one, Himself God” as a suitable gloss for this reading. Both the internal and external evidence are on its side; the only thing holding back such a variant is the interpretation that it was a modalistic reading.55 But the basis for that is a grammatical assumption that we have demonstrated not to have weight. In conclusion, both monogenēs theos and monogenēs huios fit comfortably within orthodoxy; no seismic theological shift occurs if one were to pick one reading over the other. Although some modern translators have been persuaded by Ehrman's argument here, the argument is hardly airtight. When either variant is examined carefully, both are seen to be within the realm of orthodox teaching.
Suffice it to say that if “God” is authentic here, it is hardly necessary to translate the phrase as “the unique God,” as though that might imply that Jesus alone is God. Rather, as the NET renders it (see also the NIV and NRSV), John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”
In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best.56 Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong. These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. For example, Gordon Fee said of this work that “[u]nfortunately, Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.”57 Yet the conclusions that Ehrman put forth in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture are still offered in Misquoting Jesus without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around.58 For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.
1 John 5:7–8. Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7–8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman's book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew it was not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirmed the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn't get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Constantinople's statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they got out of the NT.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because a particular verse does not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT.59 In this case anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts of 1 John 5:7 only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.