When Anxiety Attacks
9 years ago
Monday, February 23, 2009
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM!
Just in case you couldn't tell, the is the day on which my most awesome mother entered the world. On this day, some years ago, my Nana Jane gave birth to her little girl. And I am EXTREMELY thankful for that day. "Sure," you say, "if she hadn't been born, then neither would you." And this is true... BUT... I'm thankful for that day for more than just that reason. My mom has been an amazing role model to me. I inherited much of my faith in Christ because of her influence in my early life. Much of my understanding of the world is based upon how she sees things. She encouraged me and pushed me along to accomplish the things I've been able to accomplish in life. And the whole time she's been praying for me, for which I am extremely thankful. (A certain dreary day filled with freezing rain in the mountains of Georgia during Ranger School come to mind.) In short, I would not be the person I am today if not for my mother's part in my life. And so... I wish you a happy birthday, Mom! I love you. And I thank God for letting me be your son.
Just in case you couldn't tell, the is the day on which my most awesome mother entered the world. On this day, some years ago, my Nana Jane gave birth to her little girl. And I am EXTREMELY thankful for that day. "Sure," you say, "if she hadn't been born, then neither would you." And this is true... BUT... I'm thankful for that day for more than just that reason. My mom has been an amazing role model to me. I inherited much of my faith in Christ because of her influence in my early life. Much of my understanding of the world is based upon how she sees things. She encouraged me and pushed me along to accomplish the things I've been able to accomplish in life. And the whole time she's been praying for me, for which I am extremely thankful. (A certain dreary day filled with freezing rain in the mountains of Georgia during Ranger School come to mind.) In short, I would not be the person I am today if not for my mother's part in my life. And so... I wish you a happy birthday, Mom! I love you. And I thank God for letting me be your son.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
When we left off in the last blog, we were at 10,000 variants in biblical manuscripts. Read back over the variants I gave in the previous blog. These are typical variants. The first three variants simply reorder the words, “our Lord Jesus Christ.” I doubt that many people would argue that there is a difference in meaning between “our Lord Jesus Christ,” “Jesus Christ our Lord,” and, “our Lord Christ Jesus.” The fourth variant is simply a misspelling of the word “Christ,” which hardly amounts to an earth-shattering variation in the scriptural text. The overwhelming number of the 10,000 non-duplicate variants fall into this category. In fact, all but 40 of those 10,000 are variations of word order or misspelling just like the example above. So, in the literally thousands of existing manuscripts we have for the New Testament (the earliest of which dates all the way back to within 30-40 years of the Apostle John’s life), only 40 variants ever found are anything more substantial than the example I just gave.
Think about this! When we started off we had “400,000 or more!” variants according to Ehrman. After we simply remove the duplicates, the number of variants drops to under 10,000. If we then discount the obvious spelling errors and slight changes in word order, we are left with only 40 places in the New Testament where there is any debate or question about what the original text said. 40 debated variants are definitely not as spectacular, scandalous, and sensational as “400,000 or more!” So it comes as no surprise that Ehrman would conveniently leave out these clarifications which undermine the case he strives to make in his best-selling book.
Of course the next natural question is, “Well, what about those 40 remaining places? Don't they show the unreliability of the Bible? After all, even you admit that you aren't sure about the original reading in these instances.” My response to this question is simple. The remaining places where variations occur do not hurt the Christian faith, nor do they undermine my confidence in the meaning of the biblical text. I'll begin to explain this in the next blog.
Think about this! When we started off we had “400,000 or more!” variants according to Ehrman. After we simply remove the duplicates, the number of variants drops to under 10,000. If we then discount the obvious spelling errors and slight changes in word order, we are left with only 40 places in the New Testament where there is any debate or question about what the original text said. 40 debated variants are definitely not as spectacular, scandalous, and sensational as “400,000 or more!” So it comes as no surprise that Ehrman would conveniently leave out these clarifications which undermine the case he strives to make in his best-selling book.
Of course the next natural question is, “Well, what about those 40 remaining places? Don't they show the unreliability of the Bible? After all, even you admit that you aren't sure about the original reading in these instances.” My response to this question is simple. The remaining places where variations occur do not hurt the Christian faith, nor do they undermine my confidence in the meaning of the biblical text. I'll begin to explain this in the next blog.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
From my perspective it seems as though the first question to be logically answered is that of variants. After all, why argue about contradictions in a text if we don't even know whether or not that text is originally what was written? And what would be the point of figuring out how a text was chosen to be “scripture” before we even know whether or not the version we have is the one that was really “chosen” to begin with? So, I'll start by looking at the issue of variants, which is an issue that gets a lot of play in our society.
Bart Ehrman, for example, has made a significant amount of money by selling books that play off the public's lack of knowledge about New Testament scholarship and textual criticism. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why he writes with the tone of someone wishing to wow the uninitiated by letting them in on the deep dark secrets of New Testament scholars. It's almost as though he wishes to create a sense that he is sharing trade secrets with the public in an effort to blow the whistle on a vast conspiracy. While this definitely makes for sensational writing and sells over 100,000 books in its first three months at the low list-price of $24.95, it is not entirely honest and is perhaps even academically fraudulent. (Just in case you didn't stop to do the math, that's $2.5 million in sales in the first three months, with countless additional copies sold in the years following.)
Let's look at an example of how this plays out. In a section where Ehrman is revealing the supposed scandal of New Testament variants he writes: “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates – some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” (p. 89-90)
Here is what he conveniently failed to leave out of his sensational explanation...
First of all, the reason that the number of variants is debated and uncounted is not due to the great number which baffles even the most sophisticated of computer programs. The reason is far more simple and petty. Scholars cannot agree on exactly how to count the number of variants. For instance, they debate whether two manuscripts saying “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” count as one variant, two variants, or four variants. There is one variation between the two manuscripts, so most lay people would think it is one variant. But, it occurs in two manuscripts so by most scholars' estimation, that makes it two separate variants. But still other scholars would argue that the change involves and affects four different written words and their position and word order in the text as a whole, so obviously these should be considered as four different variants. Of course, this kind of academic debate tends to seem asinine to most lay people, and it definitely does not sell books, so Ehrman leaves it out.
It doesn't stop there, however. You see, most scholars will agree that a variant is counted any time a manuscript varies from any other manuscript in any way, and it is counted again in any manuscript where that same variation occurs. This means that most variants are actually just exact duplicates of other variants. For instance let's say one verse Paul wrote has four different versions in manuscripts we find, “I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for you,” “I thank Jesus Christ our Lord for you,” “I thank our Lord Christ Jesus for you,” and “I thank our Lord Jesus Crist for you.” Let's say we find the first version in 1500 different manuscripts. The second version is to be found in 1250 manuscripts. The third is seen in around 750 manuscripts, with the fourth in a measly 262 manuscripts. Most lay people I know would think this constitutes no more than four variants because there are only four variations, but no! In this case, for this one verse of eight words, we have roughly 3762 variants (unless you want to go the route of the scholar in the paragraph above who claims four variants for those four words, in which case it could easily be 12,000-15,000 variants for these eight words). So, the vast majority of Ehrman's “400,000 or more!” variants are disposed of if you simply discount the reduplication taking place. In fact, simply not counting the duplicate variants drops the total number to under 10,000 places where any form of variation occurs in any manuscript. This is still seemingly a high number, but we aren’t done yet, and I'll continue on that line in the next blog.
Bart Ehrman, for example, has made a significant amount of money by selling books that play off the public's lack of knowledge about New Testament scholarship and textual criticism. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why he writes with the tone of someone wishing to wow the uninitiated by letting them in on the deep dark secrets of New Testament scholars. It's almost as though he wishes to create a sense that he is sharing trade secrets with the public in an effort to blow the whistle on a vast conspiracy. While this definitely makes for sensational writing and sells over 100,000 books in its first three months at the low list-price of $24.95, it is not entirely honest and is perhaps even academically fraudulent. (Just in case you didn't stop to do the math, that's $2.5 million in sales in the first three months, with countless additional copies sold in the years following.)
Let's look at an example of how this plays out. In a section where Ehrman is revealing the supposed scandal of New Testament variants he writes: “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates – some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” (p. 89-90)
Here is what he conveniently failed to leave out of his sensational explanation...
First of all, the reason that the number of variants is debated and uncounted is not due to the great number which baffles even the most sophisticated of computer programs. The reason is far more simple and petty. Scholars cannot agree on exactly how to count the number of variants. For instance, they debate whether two manuscripts saying “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” count as one variant, two variants, or four variants. There is one variation between the two manuscripts, so most lay people would think it is one variant. But, it occurs in two manuscripts so by most scholars' estimation, that makes it two separate variants. But still other scholars would argue that the change involves and affects four different written words and their position and word order in the text as a whole, so obviously these should be considered as four different variants. Of course, this kind of academic debate tends to seem asinine to most lay people, and it definitely does not sell books, so Ehrman leaves it out.
It doesn't stop there, however. You see, most scholars will agree that a variant is counted any time a manuscript varies from any other manuscript in any way, and it is counted again in any manuscript where that same variation occurs. This means that most variants are actually just exact duplicates of other variants. For instance let's say one verse Paul wrote has four different versions in manuscripts we find, “I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for you,” “I thank Jesus Christ our Lord for you,” “I thank our Lord Christ Jesus for you,” and “I thank our Lord Jesus Crist for you.” Let's say we find the first version in 1500 different manuscripts. The second version is to be found in 1250 manuscripts. The third is seen in around 750 manuscripts, with the fourth in a measly 262 manuscripts. Most lay people I know would think this constitutes no more than four variants because there are only four variations, but no! In this case, for this one verse of eight words, we have roughly 3762 variants (unless you want to go the route of the scholar in the paragraph above who claims four variants for those four words, in which case it could easily be 12,000-15,000 variants for these eight words). So, the vast majority of Ehrman's “400,000 or more!” variants are disposed of if you simply discount the reduplication taking place. In fact, simply not counting the duplicate variants drops the total number to under 10,000 places where any form of variation occurs in any manuscript. This is still seemingly a high number, but we aren’t done yet, and I'll continue on that line in the next blog.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Bible has been translated and copied so many times there’s no way we can actually know what it says. There are so many different variants we can’t know which is right. And then there are all the other books that didn’t make it into the Bible. What makes them any less right or true than the ones that made it in? The Bible wasn’t even formed until centuries after the fact. What about all the contradictions in the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is reliable?
I have encountered these basic statements and questions in one form or another multiple times in the last few days, and even more times in the last couple of months. With all that is out there right now on other gospels, the conspiracies of the Bible, and the “scandalous” contradictions of the Bible, it is no surprise that many have these questions or ideas.
However, a point of interest I have noticed is that few people, when asked to elaborate further can give much detail or reason for these concerns. Ask a person to which contradictions he refers, and he typically has a very hard time coming up with a single one. Ask someone which variant readings are most troublesome, and she often can't give an answer. Most often it seems that people are simply throwing about a nebulous accusation which is currently en vogue while not actually having the slightest shred of evidence beyond the generic, “Everyone knows...” or “They say...” The funny thing is if you follow up with the natural question, “Who are 'They'?” You still are not likely to actually get any names beyond a catch-all “people who know” or “scholars who study those things”.
I have had some instances when a person who makes these claims can provide some basic response that shows more familiarity with the issues involved. They may be able to give an example of a seeming contradiction in Scripture or give a ballpark figure of the current number of manuscript variants. I will be the first to admit that there are some things in Scripture that are hard to figure out. And there are some issues that I am still working on. Interestingly, however, the contradictions people give or the manuscript variants don't fit anywhere in that picture for me. The vast majority of seeming contradictions can be quickly answered in a logical, plausible manner. The variants issue is not an issue when you actually spend time studying what is being found, rather than simply taking the word of certain popular professors who have a vested interest in selectively choosing and wording scholarly facts in order to create sensation and sell books to the public.
In an effort to lay some basic groundwork for people who want to know the truth of the situation, I'll address some of the most common issues or concerns raised about the reliability of the Bible in a series of blogs I'm starting here. Hopefully, this will help provide a basic foundation upon which those who wish to learn more can build. (What I will cover is not based upon my own smarts. I’m primarily standing on the shoulders of scholars much smarter and more educated than I. Two good starting points for a basic understanding of what I will hit on are Tim Keller’s Reason for God and Lee Stroebel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. For a much more scholarly and substantive book, that really is chewing on some academic meat, check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham.)
I have encountered these basic statements and questions in one form or another multiple times in the last few days, and even more times in the last couple of months. With all that is out there right now on other gospels, the conspiracies of the Bible, and the “scandalous” contradictions of the Bible, it is no surprise that many have these questions or ideas.
However, a point of interest I have noticed is that few people, when asked to elaborate further can give much detail or reason for these concerns. Ask a person to which contradictions he refers, and he typically has a very hard time coming up with a single one. Ask someone which variant readings are most troublesome, and she often can't give an answer. Most often it seems that people are simply throwing about a nebulous accusation which is currently en vogue while not actually having the slightest shred of evidence beyond the generic, “Everyone knows...” or “They say...” The funny thing is if you follow up with the natural question, “Who are 'They'?” You still are not likely to actually get any names beyond a catch-all “people who know” or “scholars who study those things”.
I have had some instances when a person who makes these claims can provide some basic response that shows more familiarity with the issues involved. They may be able to give an example of a seeming contradiction in Scripture or give a ballpark figure of the current number of manuscript variants. I will be the first to admit that there are some things in Scripture that are hard to figure out. And there are some issues that I am still working on. Interestingly, however, the contradictions people give or the manuscript variants don't fit anywhere in that picture for me. The vast majority of seeming contradictions can be quickly answered in a logical, plausible manner. The variants issue is not an issue when you actually spend time studying what is being found, rather than simply taking the word of certain popular professors who have a vested interest in selectively choosing and wording scholarly facts in order to create sensation and sell books to the public.
In an effort to lay some basic groundwork for people who want to know the truth of the situation, I'll address some of the most common issues or concerns raised about the reliability of the Bible in a series of blogs I'm starting here. Hopefully, this will help provide a basic foundation upon which those who wish to learn more can build. (What I will cover is not based upon my own smarts. I’m primarily standing on the shoulders of scholars much smarter and more educated than I. Two good starting points for a basic understanding of what I will hit on are Tim Keller’s Reason for God and Lee Stroebel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. For a much more scholarly and substantive book, that really is chewing on some academic meat, check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham.)
Friday, January 30, 2009
Today has been a flurry of activity. This week we moved out of our initial temporary offices and into our intermediate offices. This Sunday will be our first service back on-site since the fire, and we had to clear out of the classrooms where our temporary offices were set up and into recently cleaned offices nearer the damaged area. That happened Wednesday. Yesterday and today were spent preparing the building for Sunday. It's definitely still a construction zone, but it's much improved over the charred and sooty place it was a month and a half ago. (We've got about 75% of the building back.) With all the prep, I'm looking forward to having a day off tomorrow. But I'm looking forward, even more, to when our church comes together on Sunday for the worship service. It is going to be awesome to have us all together again at our building for communion. I expect it to be a glorious morning!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
So, I've gone ahead and posted a new link in my sidebar. It's one that I've long enjoyed, but for some reason have never posted here. Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. His site includes some good basic introductory items on philosophy and the reason for belief, particularly in Christianity. He writes well, explaining philosophical arguments for God's existence in clear, everyday language. It's a fun thing to read through. Anyway, I highly recommend checking it out. I've enjoyed rereading various articles on his site, and I suspect some of you might as well.
Friday, January 23, 2009
So... I suppose I've had a bit of an unofficial hiatus. It's been a month's time since last I posted, and although I haven't kept up with the blog, it has definitely been a full month. With so much time passing since the last post, I'm a bit at a loss for what to write. My mind has been so focused on the various tasks and necessities of the ministry at the church, in this time of transition, that it's been hard to shift my mental gears.I haven't done much reading thus far this year. I've only read a handful of books, and considering two or three of them were "scouting" potential books for premarital counseling, I won't go into those here. (I'm going to be performing my first wedding this summer, and so I'm taking a couple through premarital counseling. Fun stuff!) I've read almost the whole Book of Mormon this past month because Sarah and I have been repeatedly meeting with a few LDS missionaries. They know that I'm a pastor at the church, and we have some very honest, yet respectful conversations. And so far they keep coming back. It's been a good series of meetings, and I might take some time to reflect here on the LDS faith and how it differs from biblical Christianity (though Mormons consider themselves true Christians). But I'll leave that for a future post. For now another book comes to mind.
At the very end of the year, 2008, I read what I consider to be one of the best books ever written for the skeptic mind. Tim Keller's The Reason for God was excellent. He doesn't set out to prove the existence of God, which is a refreshing perspective for Christian apologetics. It may come as a surprise to some people that a Christian pastor may say this, but the existence of the biblical God cannot be philosophically proven. The existence of God can only be shown to be possible and, I would argue, probable. Tim Keller recognizes this and writes a book in light of that very fact. He starts out not by giving some categorical proof for the existence of God. Rather, he simply asks the skeptic to apply the same level of scrutiny to his own beliefs that he applies to religion, and Christianity in particular. If a skeptic applies the same level of skepticism to his own beliefs that he does to others, he will be forced to admit that his entire worldview is based as heavily on faith as the worldview of the "faithful" whom he mocks as unreasonable. When you "doubt your doubts" you come to the point that you realize that all "reason" is based on a decent amount of faith in something. So the question then becomes, which foundational faith is the most "reasonable". Although it cannot be absolutely proven, Christianity and the God of the Bible definitely becomes at least as "reasonable" as the other alternatives, though Keller (and I) would conclude they are actually the most probable option. Keller's book is a must-read for "believers" and "skeptics" alike. Believers who read this book may find some things which with they take issue. If you read this and encounter some things that you wonder how he could write that, consider what he says, you need not accept it. I still stand by this recommendation. On the other side, skeptics who wish to remain intellectually honest and consistent will be challenged to continue describing religion, particularly Christianity, as "unreasonable." This does not mean that they will be won over to Keller's position. It simply means that Keller makes a philosophically sound and coherent argument for the "reasonableness" of faith and the "faith" of skepticism. All in all, it's a solid book. In fact, I think it's definitely moved into one of the slots of my top ten favorites. It'll become a perrenial read, I'm sure. Anyway... check it out. I doubt you'll be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
