When Anxiety Attacks
7 years ago
Monday, March 30, 2009
I was just thinking about a project that our church is headed into and a certain set of verses came to mind. We have been working through the book of Acts in the sermon series this year and a certain verse in Acts 20 stuck out to me. It's one that has often grabbed my attention and I was reminded of it once again. In verses 26 and 27 Paul tells the Ephesians, "Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of every one's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." For two reasons this is a powerful proclamation when I stop to think about it.
First, Paul seems to indicate that he is accountable for everyone. He will either be declared guilty of or innocent of their blood... of the judgement or deliverance that falls on them. Why?! Isn't it unfair?! Doesn't God judge people for their own actions?! Why would Paul, or I for that matter, be responsible for the judgement or deliverance people experience at God's hand?!
First, Paul seems to indicate that he is accountable for everyone. He will either be declared guilty of or innocent of their blood... of the judgement or deliverance that falls on them. Why?! Isn't it unfair?! Doesn't God judge people for their own actions?! Why would Paul, or I for that matter, be responsible for the judgement or deliverance people experience at God's hand?!
The first indication of why Paul is held accountable is found in Romans 1:14-15a "I am obligated both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish. So I am eager to preach the good news..." Apparently he is under some sort of obligation to everyone that he meets. And this obligation prompts his eagerness to be a witness to the reality of Jesus' resurrection. He eagerly tells people of Jesus, because he is compelled to do so by an urgency I often forget about. This is the same obligation that God explained to the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 33. He compares Ezekiel to a watchman on a city wall with an approaching army of destruction. He says, "When you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from Me. If I say to the wicked: Wicked one, you will surely die, but you do not speak out to warn him about his way, that wicked person will die for his iniquity, yet I will hold you responsible for his blood. But if you warn a wicked person to turn from his way and he doesn't turn from it, he will die for his iniquity, but you will have saved your life." The striking parallel in terminology leads me to believe that Paul understood he was under the same sort of obligation that God placed on Ezekiel... the watchman.
Here's the thing... God explains that He will hold people accountable for the truth He has given them. If we truly believe we have found the only one who can deliver us, we have an obligation to share that with others. If we keep silent and judgement befalls them, we are held responsible by God... in short, their blood is on our hands. That is why Paul is eager to share the gospel with people. He sees the judgement that awaits, and so he takes the responsibility of being a watchman very seriously. He eagerly warns everyone around him of pending judgement as well as the deliverance made possible through the reality of the resurrection of Christ. Paul apparently has a firm grasp on that fact, which is a major motivator for him.
And this brings me to the second observation that I'm hit with by Paul's words in Acts 20. Paul is able to say that he is innocent of every one's blood. The indication here is not that he told every single person about the gospel, but that he did not shy away from any opportunity God opened up. Whenever the Holy Spirit provided Paul with an opportunity to witness to the reality of Christ and the deliverance He brings, Paul took full advantage of it. And I have to examine my life and ask, could I make the same declaration? Am I innocent of the blood of all people? Am I taking advantage of every opportunity God provides to point people to the reality of Jesus?
I'll just wrap this up with a video posted on Youtube by atheist comedian Penn Jillette. It's one that I first saw on J.D.'s blog a few weeks back. And it totally applies to what I've been mulling over today...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 or so variations in the New Testament consist primarily of single words in a given verse. “Did the original text read 'this' or 'that'?” They are definitely not as shocking as the three variations just addressed, which is why Ehrman does not spend much time on these additional variants. They will not really get him any additional conspiracy mileage upon which to sell his book.
He does hint at this fact when he indicates that a typical example of other variants is found in “...Rev. 1:5, where the author prays to 'the one who released us from our sins.' The word for 'released' (LUSANTI) sounds exactly like the word for 'washed' (LOUSANTI), and so it is no surprise that in a number of medieval manuscripts the author prays to the one 'who washed us from our sins.'” (p. 93) But, even in instances like Rev. 1:5 the meaning of the original text is not lost. The ideas of being washed from our sin and being released from our sin are both common biblical concepts that mirror one another. Neither variant shakes the foundations of Christian theology nor provides a different theological meaning of the passage, contrary to what Ehrman would like to imply. Yet this sort of variant, which is slight but has no effect on the message of a text, typifies the 37 remaining variations debated by scholars today. For some reason that just doesn't seem as flashy and scandalous as the “400,000 or more!” with which Ehrman started.
In my mind, this prompts a responding question, “If this is the best that a highly biased skeptic with a publicly admitted agenda and a substantial financial interest in making the Bible seem unreliable can do, then why would I question its reliability?” To the contrary, I am actually encouraged by the arguments of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. He brings the worst accusations available against the text of the Bible, and does so in a very misleading and sensational way, and still yet, once a few clarifications are pointed out, his argument is quickly diffused. And the entire New Testament stands unchallenged in its textual authenticity and reliability except for three non-essential passages, which coincidentally are clearly marked in the footnotes of almost any Bible you pick up.
This tells us something very important: anywhere there is not a footnote indicating otherwise, scholars are certain what is written is original. That means that at least 99.5% of the copy of the New Testament in your hands is recognized to be, without a doubt, the words that were originally written 2000 years ago. That is something people like Bart Ehrman definitely do not want the public to realize for two reasons. First, it would hurt their book sales upon which they have built their professional reputations and careers. Second, it means that people, including Ehrman himself, must deal with the words of the Bible as authentic and reliable records. A person is not required to believe the Bible is telling the truth, but its claims cannot be simply brushed aside, unfaced and unanswered, because of a supposed unreliable textual past. This means that any truly honest person must wrestle with the teachings of the New Testament on their own merit, rather than simply discounting them from the start as unreliable writings with all kinds of variations such that there is no way to tell what was originally written. I wonder if that is something Bart Ehrman and most others who level nebulous accusations against the reliability of the biblical text are willing to do.
Here’s the bottom line. It would be extremely difficult for anyone with a good knowledge of the manuscript evidence to argue that the text of the Bible was unreliably transmitted. We have what was originally written by the original authors 2000 years ago.
He does hint at this fact when he indicates that a typical example of other variants is found in “...Rev. 1:5, where the author prays to 'the one who released us from our sins.' The word for 'released' (LUSANTI) sounds exactly like the word for 'washed' (LOUSANTI), and so it is no surprise that in a number of medieval manuscripts the author prays to the one 'who washed us from our sins.'” (p. 93) But, even in instances like Rev. 1:5 the meaning of the original text is not lost. The ideas of being washed from our sin and being released from our sin are both common biblical concepts that mirror one another. Neither variant shakes the foundations of Christian theology nor provides a different theological meaning of the passage, contrary to what Ehrman would like to imply. Yet this sort of variant, which is slight but has no effect on the message of a text, typifies the 37 remaining variations debated by scholars today. For some reason that just doesn't seem as flashy and scandalous as the “400,000 or more!” with which Ehrman started.
In my mind, this prompts a responding question, “If this is the best that a highly biased skeptic with a publicly admitted agenda and a substantial financial interest in making the Bible seem unreliable can do, then why would I question its reliability?” To the contrary, I am actually encouraged by the arguments of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. He brings the worst accusations available against the text of the Bible, and does so in a very misleading and sensational way, and still yet, once a few clarifications are pointed out, his argument is quickly diffused. And the entire New Testament stands unchallenged in its textual authenticity and reliability except for three non-essential passages, which coincidentally are clearly marked in the footnotes of almost any Bible you pick up.
This tells us something very important: anywhere there is not a footnote indicating otherwise, scholars are certain what is written is original. That means that at least 99.5% of the copy of the New Testament in your hands is recognized to be, without a doubt, the words that were originally written 2000 years ago. That is something people like Bart Ehrman definitely do not want the public to realize for two reasons. First, it would hurt their book sales upon which they have built their professional reputations and careers. Second, it means that people, including Ehrman himself, must deal with the words of the Bible as authentic and reliable records. A person is not required to believe the Bible is telling the truth, but its claims cannot be simply brushed aside, unfaced and unanswered, because of a supposed unreliable textual past. This means that any truly honest person must wrestle with the teachings of the New Testament on their own merit, rather than simply discounting them from the start as unreliable writings with all kinds of variations such that there is no way to tell what was originally written. I wonder if that is something Bart Ehrman and most others who level nebulous accusations against the reliability of the biblical text are willing to do.
Here’s the bottom line. It would be extremely difficult for anyone with a good knowledge of the manuscript evidence to argue that the text of the Bible was unreliably transmitted. We have what was originally written by the original authors 2000 years ago.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
We've been looking at the particular passages Bart Ehrman attacks in his book, and I'll look at the third here briefly.
1John 5:7-8.
A few late Latin manuscripts, following verse 7, add the phrase, “...in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth...” When a 16th Century scholar named Erasmus was compiling Greek manuscripts and practicing textual criticism in the early 1500's he realized that this phrase was not in any Greek or early manuscript. So, he left the phrase out of his Greek compilation. Of course, that was scandalous to some powerful people who were used to reading the Latin copy they had. They felt Erasmus was removing a verse of Scripture, and so Erasmus promised to include it in his compilation if a single Greek manuscript could be found containing the phrase. Miracle of miracles, an “authentic” Greek manuscript was soon found, arguably with the ink still wet. True to his word, but under protest, Erasmus included the phrase in his compilation.
Today this phrase is universally recognized by scholars to be a later addition. The manuscript evidence would seem to indicate that it found its way into the Latin manuscript as a scribe jotted a note to himself in the margin of a text with which he was working. The original verses reminded him of the Trinity and he wrote a note to that effect, similar to the interactive notes people often write in the margins of books today. A few later scribes then thought the note was supposed to be included in the text, and mistakenly inserted it in their Latin texts between verses 7 and 8. (This understanding is so certain that many modern translations will only include this phrase in footnotes at the bottom of the page, not even in brackets within the context of the remaining passage.)
The fact that this phrase is not original does not undermine any major doctrine (e.g. the Trinity) in Scripture, however. For instance, the Trinity is seen in the Genesis creation narrative, where God the Father says, “Let Us create man in Our image.” The Spirit hovers over the deep. And God in the flesh comes to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden during the cool of the day. The Trinity makes an appearance in the different narratives of Jesus' baptism, where the heavens open, the Father's voice is heard affirming the Son, and the Spirit is seen descending as a dove. Other instances like this make it apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found from the Old Testament to the New. It could not be seriously argued to rest on this phrase alone.
These three instances are by far the most substantial and shocking of the 40 remaining variations at which we arrived above. But these passages are hardly the trade secrets Ehrman would like to make them out to be. To illustrate this fact, I would simply point out that most Bible translations today put these passages in brackets and include a footnote that says something to the effect of, “Early manuscripts do not contain this passage,” or, “It is uncertain that this passage is original.” So if a passage does not have that footnote, then scholars have no question about the words being what was originally written.
After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 variations consist primarily of single words in a given verse. I'll give some examples of those next time.
1John 5:7-8.
A few late Latin manuscripts, following verse 7, add the phrase, “...in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth...” When a 16th Century scholar named Erasmus was compiling Greek manuscripts and practicing textual criticism in the early 1500's he realized that this phrase was not in any Greek or early manuscript. So, he left the phrase out of his Greek compilation. Of course, that was scandalous to some powerful people who were used to reading the Latin copy they had. They felt Erasmus was removing a verse of Scripture, and so Erasmus promised to include it in his compilation if a single Greek manuscript could be found containing the phrase. Miracle of miracles, an “authentic” Greek manuscript was soon found, arguably with the ink still wet. True to his word, but under protest, Erasmus included the phrase in his compilation.
Today this phrase is universally recognized by scholars to be a later addition. The manuscript evidence would seem to indicate that it found its way into the Latin manuscript as a scribe jotted a note to himself in the margin of a text with which he was working. The original verses reminded him of the Trinity and he wrote a note to that effect, similar to the interactive notes people often write in the margins of books today. A few later scribes then thought the note was supposed to be included in the text, and mistakenly inserted it in their Latin texts between verses 7 and 8. (This understanding is so certain that many modern translations will only include this phrase in footnotes at the bottom of the page, not even in brackets within the context of the remaining passage.)
The fact that this phrase is not original does not undermine any major doctrine (e.g. the Trinity) in Scripture, however. For instance, the Trinity is seen in the Genesis creation narrative, where God the Father says, “Let Us create man in Our image.” The Spirit hovers over the deep. And God in the flesh comes to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden during the cool of the day. The Trinity makes an appearance in the different narratives of Jesus' baptism, where the heavens open, the Father's voice is heard affirming the Son, and the Spirit is seen descending as a dove. Other instances like this make it apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found from the Old Testament to the New. It could not be seriously argued to rest on this phrase alone.
These three instances are by far the most substantial and shocking of the 40 remaining variations at which we arrived above. But these passages are hardly the trade secrets Ehrman would like to make them out to be. To illustrate this fact, I would simply point out that most Bible translations today put these passages in brackets and include a footnote that says something to the effect of, “Early manuscripts do not contain this passage,” or, “It is uncertain that this passage is original.” So if a passage does not have that footnote, then scholars have no question about the words being what was originally written.
After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 variations consist primarily of single words in a given verse. I'll give some examples of those next time.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My uber cool brother and sister-in-law just had their second child, Isabella Kate. Connie started going into labor on Monday and Isabella Kate was born in the wee hours of the A.M. on Tuesday. Congratulations Adam, Connie, and Josiah on the new daughter/sister! Wish I could be there and get to check her out in person. Me and the rest of the Alaska crew love you guys!
By the way, if you want to check out some pictures of my cute niece, just click here.
By the way, if you want to check out some pictures of my cute niece, just click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
