Who Changed our Bible? (Part III)

 

Let's take one more look a Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus". One verse Ehrman points to as an issue is Mark 1:41. The larger context reads, Mark 1:40-44 ESV

(40)  And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

(41)  Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

(42)  And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

(43)  And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once,

(44)  and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

The issue is found in verse (41), most manuscripts use (σπλαγχνισθει) translated as "moved with compassion" or as the ESV above reads, "moved with pity". However, Ehrman points out that one of our oldest manuscripts, Codex Bezae, and three other Latin manuscripts read using (ὀργισθείς) which is translated as "becoming angry". Ehrman states, "It is obviously important to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger . . ."Misquoting Jesus (Page 149). 

Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus’ anger in this passage, it would change our picture of Jesus that Mark presents significantly. There is no doubt there are two different readings of the text in some manuscripts, but keep in mind, an accumulation of things such as this is what Ehrman is presenting as evidence the Bible has changed over time as well as his defection from the Christian faith. Really? We are looking at handwritten manuscripts some of which are a thousand years old and we are supposed to be surprised that they don't read exactly the same? We also should remember we are talking about thousands of manuscripts and this is the best he can offer as a reason to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible?

So how does this affect the passage? The passage in question is a revelation of the passion that motivated Jesus to perform the healing of the leper. Was it anger or Compassion? Only the author of the original autograph knows for sure since we obviously have two readings now. Our Bibles render it as Compassion simply because the majority of the known evidence lends to that reading. It is simply the most likely reading, but if most scribes got it wrong and he was really angry, has the Gospel been changed? Do we have a different Jesus than the one that is presented in the scriptures? 

The answer to all is absolutely not, the intent and purpose of the text in question are not the particular passion Jesus was feeling at the time but an acknowledgment of the almighty power of Jesus, and an appeal to his benevolence. If he was angry it would be in character with the Jesus that Mark has presented elsewhere in Scripture, for we see in Mark 3:5 ESV

(5)  And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

One could also speculate the possibility of both passions being present as a motivating factor, compassion for the leper and anger for similar reasons as we read about later in Mark 3:5. Are we to assume because it is not mentioned in Mark 3:5 Jesus was not compassionate toward to man with the withered hand? It appears for Ehrman to have confidence in the Scriptures he requires a perfect flawless copy from thousands of handwritten manuscripts. Obviously, that is realistically impossible and one would appear foolish to suggest otherwise. 

Another point of interest for Ehrman is Matthew 24:36, 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 concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.  However, many manuscripts, including some early ones, lack (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.)  “nor the Son”  so it can be disputed wither it was in the original reading or not. However, what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel passage 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.” Thus, we know that even if the phrase was not in the original autograph it is nonetheless a true statement confirmed for us in a non-disputed parallel text. In his book, Ehrman lists several examples such as those mentioned above, had he had a desire to he could have listed a seemingly endless collection. What he is presenting is nothing new and anyone who has studied the process of Biblical translation knows it's no easy task. But they also know that because of the meticulous work that has been exerted we can have great confidence not only in our English Bibles but in the Scriptures overall. That is not to say all English translations are equal, but that is another subject altogether.

And of course, Ehrman points out in 1 John 5.7, that virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. The passage made its way into our Bibles appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it was not authentic. 

The KJV reads, 1 John 5:7 KJV

(7)  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

And the ESV reads, 1 John 5:7 ESV

(7)  For there are three that testify:

The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirmed the Trinity! So the presence or absence of the verse changes nothing concerning the text. They affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another thousand years. The early church simply put into a theological formulation what they got out of the New Testament when defining the doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The addition of the extended phraseology of verse 7 by some scribes in the 14th Century changes no understanding concerning the Biblical text. Sure we would feel better about it all if we had a perfect text, but what we do have makes it possible to obtain a very highly reliable text.

Anyone with an understanding of the patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the New Testament text. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts as well as being included in our KJV of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not add or change any new information. Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" as well as others he has since published is very well done and sufficient to cause many Christians concern and perhaps even doubt the Bible they have trusted for so long. One positive aspect of his work is hopefully those who read his books will continue to investigate and study the source of our Scriptures. In doing so, they will strengthen their understanding of what they are reading as well as their confidence in the accuracy of the Scriptural text. A full scholarly review of "Misquoting Jesus" by Daniel B. Wallace can be found at Bible.org

Ehrman seems to suggest the Scriptures available to us today are producing some evolved form of Christianity. What we must understand is all the variations in our doctrinal views, divisions, and debates are not because our Bibles are reading differently, it is because we are simply coming to different conclusions as to what is read. The weakness is not in the text to communicate but in our understanding and interpretative methods. There were disagreements in the Second Century when there was access to the original autographs, this is nothing new. However, as we read the commentary and sermons from the patristic era, they may be viewing the text in different ways, but the text they are commenting on is the text we are reading. As we read their writings we recognize the text and realize they are reading the same Scripture we are reading nearly two thousand years later. Yes, Ehrman can point out all the variant readings in the ancient manuscripts, but he cannot point to a different Gospel, a different church, or a different Jesus in the second century. We still have the same Gospel and the same Jesus they were writing, preaching, and commenting upon. The Gospel still stands as the same Gospel!

God bless,

David