Are We Misquoting Jesus?

Are we misquoting Jesus? Randall Niles takes a look at Bart Ehrman and his view of New Testament textual criticism.

Visit http://www.AllAboutWorldview.org/misquoting-jesus.htm to dig deeper into textual criticism of the early New Testament manuscripts.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos about New Testament textual criticism in light of Misquoting Jesus!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Misquoting Jesus
• Bart Ehrman
• New Testament
• Textual Criticism
• Bible Manuscripts
• Bible Contradictions
• Randall Niles

[reflect7]

Addressing the line of thought below (ending with MrFacet), I didn't say that Ehrman calls all the variants "Big Things" -- In fact, he's clear to indicate that most of the variants are insignificant (and I agree). However, each time he delivers this simple statement, he follows it with a loaded conclusion.

[reflect7]

Misquoting, p. 208 -- "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.

[reflect7]

"It would be wrong, however, 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.

[reflect7]

"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? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning?

[reflect7]

"Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on..."

[reflect7]

It's the above list that I refer to as Ehrman's biggies -- Mark 1:41, Hebrews 2:8-9, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8, John 1:18, Matthew 24:36 -- and he ends this discussion of known variants with the open-ended statement, "the questions go on and on..." Sorry, I'm not that slick -- I'm just pointing things out. (By the way, I have no idea what he said in some lecture you attended.)

[sandslasher4]

He pretty much just proved that Bart Ehrman is right by saying that the bible changed at all since corruption can be defined as the alteration of a text. A holy book could NEVER be altered unless it was corrupt,hence making the bible corrupt.

[YahoshuaMyLord]

cognitive dissonance.........LOL. Sorry, although I am a believer I must say that this is a poor attempt to sweep a serious matter under the rug.

[MRGV7373]

Very good, thanks for the update. This continues to show me that the NT writings are good and valid events and my belief in Jesus is solid and valid since the events were recorded and pass onto the current time in good condition and accurately kept. Thanks again.

[wizard99uk]

Ehrnan actually does state in his videos most corruptions are irrelevent and that bible scholars know about the additions. He does say that layman Christians do not know this though.

Mr Niles says these additions are known about. Who put them there? What was the purpose? And why are they still there if it is known not to be true?

Is it correct to say have come from God when you know it is not true?

[AMATTEROFTRUTH]

Great video, thanks for posting it. This guy Bart Erman who wrote Misquoting Jesus reminds me of Paul's thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan sent to buffit believers. And your way of looking at all these differences in these manuscripts is like Paul rejoicing in his weaknesses in order to become strong in the Lord and overcome any obsticle set in his way by the enemy.

[paulinator61]

Your conclusion is unfounded. Agreed, most variants are irrelevant. But some are not. The strongest verse supporting the Trinity is in 1 John, and it's not in the original variants. Whether there's a trinity or not matters.

Furthermore, Bart's point is that if we already know there are errors and in some cases forgeries, how do we know there aren't even more in the earliest scripts, of which we have no copies. Your confidence in the bible is unfounded by simple logic.

[JudahsLion99]

lol...this guy isnt biased at all, is he....ahem.

[k0smon]

@bonnie43uk You have hit on the highest of spiritual attributes. This will stand you in good stead in the life to come. Read "Life in the World Unseen", free download from the internet.

[cjjt2000]

I dont think this idiot actually read the book because he is misquoting Ehrman.

[salemslot777]

if youd known that for hundreds of years why arent they made known to your followers?cmon face it it was and is still misleading to add things that werent there in the first plce.

[ManicEightBall]

The problem with the Bible is that we don't have copies going all the way back. Before the copies we have, we just don't know what changes were made and what ideas were eliminated. In his other book "Lost Christianities" he points out a number of groups that held ideas that would barely be considered Christian in current times, but they did exist, and they had books, too. We don't even know who the original authors were.

So how can we say we know what was "originally" written?

[Mirror4u2]

@sandslasher4 Very true. Just further evidence of an absentee landlord.