Explanation of the Trinity in ASL

Armenian Orthodox subdeacon Tigran Khachikyan gives a detailed look at the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity in American Sign Language. Captions are available for those who don’t understand ASL:

Part one is here.

The Faith is for everyone!

Great first lines of this video on the life of St. Paul applying to today:

The Faith is not just for the Greeks or the Russians. It’s for everyone!

Are We Living in a Special Time? Part One

I thank my friend Tom for providing this article that refutes the Jehovah’s Witness belief that we are living in a special time. Part 2 can be read here.

Are We Living in a Special Time? — Part One

by Tom Cabeen

A long-standing and very prominent Watchtower teaching is the belief that in 1914 a special period of time Jesus called the “Gentile Times” ended, the “last days” began, and Christ began to rule over the whole earth for the first time since his resurrection and ascension to heaven. Immediately prior to that time, Jesus, in anticipation of his imminent reign, began inspecting the religious organizations of the world to see which one would be his official representative when he began to rule. He examined the teachings of all religions on earth claiming to be Christian and decided that the most “faithful” one (meaning the one with the most correct interpretation of the Bible) was the small group of Charles Russell’s followers, later to be known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, Watchtower publications teach, shortly after 1914 Jesus committed all the interests of his kingdom into their hands, and they became his only approved channel of communication between God and mankind.

If this teaching is true, something very significant changed in 1914. Things must be different since 1914 than they were for the rest of the Christian era. If this is true, that would add some evidence to the idea that, as they claim, the Watchtower Society, with its origins in the nineteenth century, is the only denomination which God approves. On the other hand, if the weight of scriptural and historical evidence points away from this conclusion, any group which proclaims this idea, including the Watchtower Society, is suspect. If we hold the idea that we are now living in a special time, we may have to reevaluate our views.

Since its origin, fundamental teachings of the Watchtower Society have been based on and intimately tied to the idea that serious Bible students could determine with reasonable accuracy when Christ would return, either through chronological calculations or observation of unique world events which would serve as a sign of Christ’s imminent return or advent (or both). Generically, Christians who believe that to be possible have been called “Adventists”.

First, let us examine the chronology which, according to their claims, establishes that 1914 marked the end of one special time period and the beginning of another.

Is Watchtower Chronology Sound?

C.T. Russell's chronology borrowed many elements from William Miller and the Second Adventists

Charles T. Russell borrowed his chronology and methodology from the Second Adventists, after William Miller’s failed attempt at predicting Christ’s return in 1843, based on the same methodology. The calculations are based largely on interpretations of passages in Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24. In brief, Witnesses teach that the “Gentile Times” is a special period of 2,520 years during which God’s kingdom, David’s dynasty, had no king. It supposedly began when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and ended in 1914. Considering the importance of the conclusions it supports, the chronology is based on a rather tenuous series of assumptions:

First, that the dream Nebuchadnezzar had about becoming a beast for “seven times” (recorded in Daniel 2) does not refer primarily to him (as stated directly in the text), but rather that he, a pagan king, not even a worshiper of Israel’s God, actually represents God’s kingdom.

Second, that God’s kingdom or rulership over mankind somehow “ended” when Zerubbabel, a direct descendent of David, was removed from the throne of Jerusalem when it was destroyed by Babylon, and that the kingdom would “begin” again some twenty-five centuries later when Jesus, a descendent of David, began to rule in 1914. The Jews expected a descendent of David to rule as king forever, but the concept of God’s kingdom “ending” and “beginning” is never suggested in the Jewish sacred writings, and in fact directly contradicts Daniel 4:17, which is specifically connected to Nebuchadnezzar’s beastly experience!

Third, based on the first assumption, each “time” must represent a special “prophetic” year of 360 days, although no actual earthly year, solar or lunar, has 360 days. [The Aramaic word Daniel used for “time” just means a period of time, not always a year. (The word for 1 “year” is different, as used, for example, in Daniel 1:1). The word used in Daniel 4 is `idd¹n, which, according to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, means “ time, period, span , year, era. ... Two basic meanings are equally a "point" in time or a "span" of time.” In this context, a “time” could easily mean a week, a month or a season. Possibly, Nebuchadnezzar only acted like a beast for seven months or seasons, not seven years.] Seven of these 360-day prophetic years would add up to a total of 2,520 “prophetic” days. To make this assumption even more shaky, each of these “prophetic” days in turn must represent a solar year of approximately 365¼ days. Absolutely nothing in Scripture, Jewish tradition, or the writings of early Christians even suggests that we make this complicated series of assumptions and calculations.

Fourth, that this period of 2,520 solar years are identical to what Jesus referred to when he used the expression translated “the appointed times of the nations” or “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 (“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled…”), even though Jesus was specifically discussing the future destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, not its past destruction by Babylon, and despite the fact that there is not a single word in Scripture, Jewish tradition or Christian writings that indicates that the “Gentile times” refer to any time period during which God’s eternal kingdom would be inactive.

Fifth, that Jerusalem was actually destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s armies in 607 BC. The date for Jerusalem’s destruction is one of the most accurately fixed of ancient history. More, significantly, the historical sources that establish the date for Babylon’s fall in 539 BC, (which date the Watchtower Society does accept and, in fact, which it uses as the starting point for its 1914 calculations) are exactly the same sources that establish 587/6 BC as the date for Jerusalem’s destruction! Several independent lines of evidence (historical, astronomical, archeological, etc.) point to the date of 587/86 BC, not 607 BC, as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction. There is not a single line of historical evidence which supports the 607 BC date. (See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olof Jonsson, Commentary Press, 1998 for a detailed discussion of this topic.)

Sixth, that all the plain passages in the Greek Scriptures that clearly state that Jesus began ruling in the first century, such as Matthew 28:18: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” don’t really mean what they say. Below is a more extended discussion of the implications of this assumption.

C.T. Russell wrote in the 7/15/1894 Watchtower that 1914 would be the end of the time of trouble.

Each of the six assumptions listed above are interrelated. All must be true before the Watchtower conclusion could be accepted with any degree of confidence. Again, the veracity of all of them together are absolutely critical to the Watchtower teaching that we are living in the time of the end and that the Watchtower Society has been chosen by Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s organization and, as such, His official channel of communication with his faithful people on earth in 1914. If any one of them is wrong, the final conclusion is invalid and the Watchtower claim is demonstrated to be false.

It is worth noting that Russell, using the same methodology, “proved” that he was living in a special time period, which would end in 1914 with Christ’s return to judge the nations. He also admitted that if any one of the assumptions upon which he based his conclusions were wrong, it would prove his entire approach would be completely invalid. That did, in fact, happen. In time, not only did every one of his assumptions get rejected, Russell’s ending date for the time of the end (1914) is now the starting date for the same period, according to current Watchtower teaching.

When Did Jesus Begin to Reign?

If the Watchtower chronology is invalid and Jesus did not begin reigning in 1914, is he reigning now? If so, when did that reign start? Watchtower publications interpret Hebrews 1:13 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”) as follows:

“In 33 C.E., [Jesus] died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven. … At that time, however, Jesus did not act as King and Judge over the nations. He was seated next to God, awaiting the time to act as King of God’s Kingdom. Paul wrote of him: “With reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet’?” (Hebrews 1:13) Jehovah’s Witnesses have published much evidence that Jesus’ period of waiting expired in 1914, when he became ruler of God’s Kingdom in the invisible heavens.” —The Watchtower, 10/15/95, pg 21, par. 14-16

Hebrews 10: 12, 13 says: “But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.” If this were the only reference to Psalm 110 in the Christian Scriptures, and there was nothing else to indicate otherwise, this verse might indeed be interpreted to mean that the word “waits” in this passage refers to a period of non-rulership, which is exactly how the Watchtower Society interprets it:

“Even after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, he had to wait at his Father’s right hand until the time came for him to rule as King over mankind. (Hebrews 10:12, 13)” —The Watchtower, 6/15/94, pg 6

But is this how the apostles and early Christians understood the expression “sit at my right hand”? No! Among many ancient peoples, the imagery of a king sitting on the throne of his God was a common way to express that the king ruled with the approval and support of his God, and this is consistent with how early Christians understood this phrase. (See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 3rd Ed. , Carl Olof Jonsson, Commentary Press, 1998, pg 264-270.)

This is not the only place where this expression from Psalm 110 is quoted in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This passage from the Hebrew Scriptures is the one most often quoted in Christian Scripture. So we can examine a number of its appearances to correctly establish just how it was used and to what arguments it was applied as support. The Watchtower interpretation that “sitting” meant “waiting” is required by their chronology-based belief that Jesus could not begin his reign until 1914, as discussed above. But it is quite clear from many other passages that the early Christians did not understand the passage to mean that. They understood the phrase “sitting at God’s right hand” to mean that Jesus was already ruling as king. One very clear example of this is Paul’s citation of Psalm 110 in his first letter to the Corinthians while discussing the resurrection. Paul actually substitutes the term “rule as king” for “sit at God’s right hand” in the source from which he quotes:

Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. … But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. —1 Cor 15:24-28 NW (Italics added.)

It is clear from his use of the passage that Paul understood “placing all things under Christ’s feet” to mean rulership. Why should that not be the case, since after his resurrection, Jesus explicitly stated that he had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” When Jesus was born, the angel Gabriel said that he would be given the throne of David his forefather, and that he would reign forever. So it would be most natural for the apostles to understand his post-resurrection words to mean that he was reigning as their king, even if the way in which he was to rule turned out to be different from what they expected. The psalmist’s statement that he was to reign in the midst of his enemies is consistent with the idea that his rulership expands until, by the end of his reign, all things are under his feet. A great
resurrection occurs at that time; thus death becomes the last enemy to be subject to him. The image is that of a ruler who sits down on his throne, at the right hand of his God, and continues to rule until all things are subject to his power. Afterward, Paul writes, the Son subjects himself to God, the Father.

Early Christians believed the ascended Christ to be ruling as king.

Many other passages show that the apostles and early disciples viewed Jesus as ruling as king in their day, several of which quote Psalm 110 for support. Here are but a few (all quoted from the New World Translation, 1971 ed.):

Matt 28:18-20: Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

Mark 16:19: So, then, the Lord Jesus, after having spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

John 5:26, 27: For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is.

John 17:1, 2: Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, according as you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life.

Col 2:9, 10: …it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.

Acts 17:6, 7: …they dragged Jason and certain brothers to the city rulers, crying out: “These men that have overturned the inhabited earth are present here also, and Jason has received them with hospitality. And all these [men] act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.”

Eph 1:18-23: It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

Col 1: 12-14: … [The Father] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.

1 Pet 3:21, 22: [Baptism] is also now saving YOU, … (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

Viewed in their context, these passages indicate clearly that early Christians believed Jesus was ruling, not waiting. The entire basis of their confidence in salvation and forgiveness of sins was based on their understanding that they had a ruling high priest who could actively plead for them, that the glorified Jesus was in heaven, sitting at God’s right hand, that is, ruling with His Father’s full support, possessing complete authority to act on their behalf.

Part Two can be read here.

For further reading:

Historical Idealism and Jehovah’s Witnesses (an evaluation of the claim that Watchtower publications predicted Christ’s return in 1914)

Critiquing the Watchtower’s Latest Defense of their 607 BCE Chronology

A Memorial to a False Prophecy

Icon As Scripture

Fascinating lecture entitled “Icon as Scripture” by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo given at Christ the Savior Orthodox Church in Stafford, Virginia:

While visiting Virginia, he gave a lecture to students and faculty at the University of Mary Washington entitled “Models of Reality as Sources of Conflict”:

Science, Creation and the Seeking of Truth in Orthodox Christian Theology

Fr. Gregory Hallam, the pastor of St. Aidan’s Orthodox Church in Levenshulme, Manchester, in Great Britain, offers this recording of his lecture “Science, Creation and the Seeking of Truth in Orthodox Christian Theology,” given February 24, 2011 at Manchester Metropolitan University. He comments on this recording:

In this lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University I show how Religion and Science are not incompatible. I propose that the Faith of the Orthodox Church, which is so distinctive and different from all other Christian Churches, has some interesting insights to offer.

This is my first attempt at recording. The quality is average but I have learned lessons for next time!

Despite some technical issues, he gives a thought-provoking lecture on the subject. Transcript of lecture here.  Slides used, audio file, and additional media used can be found here.

Is Jesus Christ a Myth? Part Three

By James Hannam

Editor’s Note: The first installment in this series introduced the question of whether Jesus Christ was an actual historical person or a mythological fabrication, and the second part discussed the allegation that the Jesus story is assembled from bits and pieces of pagan mythology. The present installment considers what the letters of the apostle Paul attest about the life of Jesus.

The Non-Silence of Paul

The theory that Jesus never existed started life in pseudo-scholarly circles with the fact that Paul does not say very much about Jesus’ life or ministry. The earliest Pauline letters are generally believed to have been written within twenty years of Jesus’ death. So, it is instructive to find out what Paul actually did say. With that in mind, here is a list of what Paul had to say about Jesus in his letters, together with the scriptural reference.

• Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)

• Jesus was referred to as “Son of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:9)

• Jesus was a direct descendant of King David. (Romans 1:3)

• Jesus prayed to God using the term “Abba.” (Galatians 4:6)

• Jesus expressly forbade divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:10)

• Jesus taught that “preachers” should be paid for their preaching. (1 Corinthians 9:14)

• Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thessalonians 4:15)

• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Corinthians 3:22)

• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)

• Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord’s Supper. (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

• Jesus’ death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Corinthians 2:8)

• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)

• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Corinthians 13:4, et. al.)

• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Corinthians 15:4)

It turns out that careful analysis of his letters shows that Paul was not actually all that silent about the historical Jesus at all. The first reaction to all this from the Christ Mythologist is to dispute that Paul wrote very many of these letters. But seven of the Pauline letters are completely undisputed, and all of the facts about Jesus’ life listed above come from these seven. It is ironic that the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, which many scholars insist are late (and date from after the synoptic Gospels), contain practically no details about the life of Jesus at all.

As there are still rather a lot of details about the historical Jesus in the undisputed letters, the Christ Mythologist will use special pleading to try and explain them away, as though Paul himself were constructing the Jesus myth. But as we can see, Paul is not attempting to tell Jesus’ life story, he is just using the odd snippet about Jesus where it is helpful to illustrate his point. He knows that his readers are aware of what happened because all of his letters are addressed to people who are already Christians. He is not trying to convert them and he is not engaged in apologetics.

If we look at the letters of the early Christian fathers, they rarely have details about the life of Jesus except in passing because they know their readers are familiar with the Gospels. What we today call the Gospels had not, of course, been written down at the time that Paul was preaching. However, oral communication was considered to be more reliable than the written word at the time. The people to whom Paul wrote had heard about Jesus already. They did not need a revision primer but specific advice about problems and controversies. Of course, none of this will convince the Christ Mythologist who just cannot understand why Paul does not just repeat verbatim to his correspondents what he has already told them in person.

In short, the silence of Paul about Jesus is something of a myth in itself.

The fourth part in this series, which uses the methods of the Jesus Mythologists to ‘prove’ that Hannibal never existed, will be published soon.  Reprinted with permission of the author. Source.

James Hannam earned degrees in physics and history from Oxford and London universities, and his doctorate in the history of science from Cambridge University. He blogs at bedejournal.blogspot.com and recently published God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (London, 2009), the first history of medieval science written for the layperson. The book was recently shortlisted for the Royal Society Science Book Prize for 2010.

Some Recent Lectures from You Tube

Fr. Hans Jacobse discusses some questions with a student audience after a recent debate with an atheist spokesman:

On the Intrinsic Value of a Human Being:

On the Essence of Christianity and Philosophical Materialism:

On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture:

Fr. George Dragas on the Incarnation of Christ.

This was a retreat given Nov. 13, 2010 and is in 7 parts. Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas (1944 – ) is a prominent 20th and 21st century Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, and writer. He is currently professor of patristics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts.

On the Incarnation — Part One. This begins with some preliminary remarks and the lecture on the Incarnation begins about 3:20:

On the Incarnation — Part Two:

The rest of the series can be listened to here.

Eastern Orthodox Bible Project — Editors Needed

If you’re not familiar with the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) project, take a look at their webpage here. So far, they’ve produced a complete New Testament translation with some excellent notes and appendices.

A PDF of the first edition of the NT (minus some of the notes), bookmarked by chapter division can be downloaded here.

Editors are working on completing the Old Testament portion and I recently received word from the project director that they are seeking more editors to help finish the project. He asked me to pass on word to readers of this blog to tell of the need. If you’re interested, drop a line to the project.

Scripture and Tradition: Text and Meaning

By Fr. Ted Bobosh

I’ve been listening to some lectures by Dr. Silviu Bunta, scripture professor at the University of Dayton, which have gotten me thinking about the relationship of Scripture to Tradition, or in other terms, the relationship of text to meaning.

If we look at the Canon of Scripture of the Jews, we come to realize that pretty much the Jewish Scriptures have come to us not as text carved into stone (as much as some want this to be true), but really as a living and lived Tradition.  We can’t really separate the official, canonical Scriptures from the Tradition which shaped them, interpreted them, and gave them the meaning which then shaped the people of Israel.  (Even the meaning isn’t carved into stone – it was supposed to be written on the hearts of the people – Jeremiah 31:33)

Of course there is the Hebrew text, the scriptures of the Jews.  However, inasmuch as the original text lacks vowels, punctuation, capitalization or any spaces between words, any attempt to read it is by definition an interpretation.   Additionally, the text is ancient and in a language that fell out of use in history, and so requires interpretation and explanation even if one is able to form words from the stream of consonants which make up the text.

For example imagine trying to read and understand Genesis 2:7 if it appeared as:

thnthlrdgdfrmdmnfdstfrm

thgrndndbrthdnthsnstrlst

hbrthflfndmnbcmlvngbng

This text in the Revised Standard Version reads:  “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

How would anyone be able to figure that out?  Because we don’t just have the text, we also have the Tradition which preserved the text and interpreted it through history giving it both context and meaning.   Thus the received text, is received within a context – both a community and a rich body of literature which endeavored to interpret the text (and even  preserved debates about the meaning of the text).

The ancients looked at the text for its meaning, which in turn determined which texts became part of the Scriptures of the Jews.    To put it another way, it is because of the meaning found in the text that the text came to be considered as Scripture.   Thus the process by which this happened – the context, community and Tradition – are as important as the text itself for interpreting, understanding and deriving meaning from the text.

For the ancients the text cannot be separated from its meaning, and so the context, the community and the Tradition must be preserved in order to keep both the text and its meaning together.  Thus Scripture and Tradition are inseparable.

I want to take these ideas one step further and use them to help us understand Matthew 5:43-48, where Christ says:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Some Christians might be surprised to learn that Jesus did not make up his teachings on love, but actually brings forth commandments given to Israel in the Torah, in this case Leviticus 19:18 which reads: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

What is more interesting is that the words of Jesus that people would have heard “to hate their enemies” occur nowhere in the Old Testament.  What Jesus appears to be quoting is a Tradition which has Scripture in it, but with additional interpretation.  Jesus does not parse the statement and say you will find in Scriptures “love your neighbor” and you will hear in Tradition “hate your enemies.”  Christ does not separate Scripture from Tradition even though He disagrees with the Tradition; He still treats Tradition and Scripture, text and meaning, as one reality.    He then rejects this stated Tradition, and offers a new understanding of the Torah, calling us to love not just neighbors and brothers, but even our enemies!   This too is not a teaching of the Old Testament, but is something new which Christ is offering.   Christ takes the teaching of Leviticus 19:18, and expands it and offers a new rational for keeping it in a new way:  we are to be children of God which means we are to be like God who gives both rain and sunshine to the evil people as well as the good ones.  God does not limit His love and goodness only to those who love and obey Him.  Christ does not in the end separate Tradition and Scripture, but He does give it a new meaning.

Christ is moving away from the meaning which some Jews had derived from Scriptures; He offers the values of God’s “upside down” Kingdom which are quite different from human ideas of justice.  The Torah teaches us to love neighbor and brother, but Jesus says even sinners do that, so that can hardly be a value of God’s kingdom for it is nothing more than a sinful human value.  We are to love as God loves, which is in a most amazing, unconstrained, unlimited, unconditional and graceful way.

Christ challenges not the divine Scriptures but the human tradition which had evolved around them and which limited their meaning and purpose so that they no longer transformed Israel, but rather kept the Jews being like any sinners.    The Scriptures which were to deify us had been reduced to preserving our fallen humanity, to a human affirmation of the values which sinful humanity endorses.

Tradition though humanly essential for preserving Scripture and its meaning is challenged by the Kingdom of God.   We need Tradition in order to preserve and understand the Scriptures (to give context to the text), but we also need the Holy Spirit to make God’s Word be that living and active sword which discerns our thoughts and intentions (Hebrews 4:12).

Though the Scriptures by themselves are not sufficient for our understanding God’s revelation (the Scriptures must be interpreted, given meaning and lived), there are limits to the Tradition which interprets them.  Not all interpretations are correct, nor is all tradition helpful for our sojourn to God’s Kingdom.

And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”  (Revelation 21:5)

Reprinted with permission.  Original post.

Book Review: Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

H/T: Pious Fabrications:

Review by David Withun

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman; ISBN: 0-06-073817-0

To be completely honest, reading this book was a waste of my time. I generally enjoy Ehrman’s work, in spite of his sensationalist style, but I was very disappointed with this one. Misquoting Jesus was filled with page after page of Ehrman’s typical version of “shock and awe,” none of which is very often shocking or awing, but with none of the redeeming information and interesting facts that his other books usually contain.

Rather than a scholarly and engaging look at the manuscript traditions of the New Testament and ensuing errors and alterations thereof which I assumed would be the content of this book, Ehrman spends the majority of the book speaking in the first person as a young, naive “‘born again’ Christian” being exposed for the first time to (what he believes are) the shocking facts that the King James Version isn’t the inerrant Word of God and that the Scriptures didn’t fall out of heaven one day. This reveals much less about the history and textual traditions of the New Testament than it does about Ehrman himself, who seems to live perpetually in that juvenile state and seems to honestly believe that every other self-professed Christian lives in the same state. This latter apparent view of Ehrman was revealed especially by the variety of inane statements throughout the book which seem to indicate his unfamiliarity with any form of Christianity outside of the evangelical “born again” version of his childhood (see below for an example of this). 

What scanty little real facts and information there were in this book were not only overshadowed by the above aspects of the book but were also basic enough that they could easily be gleaned by reading Wikipedia articles on the relevant topics (trust me, that’s an insult). I’ve done a little reading in the area, but I’m no expert to be sure, and yet aside from a few minor dates and interesting stories, I was familiar with almost everything covered in this book. 

In the end, I wouldn’t recommend this book at all. There’s too much great reading in early Christian history and even specifically in the manuscript traditions of the New Testament (such as Jaroslav Pelikan’s Whose Bible Is It? A Short History of the Scriptures, for instance) to waste your time reading such worthless trite. Rather than scholarship, you will receive a thinly-veiled attack on Ehrman’s own straw-man of Christianity (he does, after all, begin the book with the story of his own conversion from “‘born-again’ Christianity” to atheism), made all the more pitiful for not only being possibly the weakest criticism ever leveled at Christianity but for Ehrman’s halfhearted attempt to make his attack look like real scholarship.

For your reading pleasure, a few outstanding examples of Ehrman’s inanity in this book:

1. “This is the account of 1 John 5:7-8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been a favorite among Christian theologians, since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three constitute just one God.”

Really? A purported New Testament scholar who is unfamiliar with Matthew 28:19? How about Titus 3:4-6? Still nothing? Oh well, I give up… Just out of curiosity, though: who are these “Christian theologians” amongst whom the Johannine Comma “[has] long been a favorite”? You’d think things like this would need more than vague assertions and non-arguments; not in Ehrmanworld, I guess.

2. “… or consider all the different Christian denominations, filled with intelligent and well-meaning people who base their views of how the church should be organized and function on the Bible, yet all of them coming to radically different conclusions (Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Appalachian snake-handlers, Greek Orthodox, and on and on).”

You’d think it would be a good idea for somebody who “chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill” (as the author bio on the back flap of the book says) to know enough about the two largest groups of Christians in the world, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, that he would not make the ignorant statement that these two groups “base their views of how the church should be organized and function on the Bible.” Really? When did the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox pick up Sola Scriptura? And all this time I thought Tradition was the basis of our system of Church governance. In addition, there can’t be much reason aside from sheer ignorance why he insists on saying “Greek Orthodox” specifically (he says it twice in this book and I’ve noticed it in others as well, where he gives a list similar to this one for a similar reason) is beyond me, given that there are 26 other Orthodox jurisdictions in addition to the Greek and that the Greek jurisdiction is not even the largest of them. I can only hope that somebody in a position of power at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is reading this and thinking about hiring a chair for their Department of Religious Studies(!) who is actually familiar with … well … religious studies.

3. And, of course, saving the best for last: “Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

Thanks to True Free Thinker for saving me the work on this one:

Considering that [Bart Ehrman's] book Misquoting Jesus explored the issue of variant readings in New Testament manuscripts it may be surprising to some that Bart Ehrman’s book itself contains millions and millions of variants.

Following are some examples of the variants:

On p. 13 reference is made to “Timothy LeHaye and Philip Jenkins” as the authors of the Left Behind series of novels. However, the authors of the series are Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Thus, error 1. Tim has never published as “Timothy,” error 2. his last name is not LeHaye but LaHaye and error 3. Jenkins’s first name is not Philip but Jerry.

On p. 110 error 4. “Timothy” is used as LaHaye’s last name.

In the index Timothy’s name is error 5. again spelled as “LeHaye.”

On p. 110 Hal Lindsey’s name is error 6. misspelled as “Hal Lindsay.”

On p. 70 Desiderius Erasmus is error 7. misspelled as “Desiderus Erasmus.”

…[snip]…

Now, if you are paying attention—or are you like me and simply cannot afford to pay attention? )—you may be thinking 1) that is only 16 errors, 2) they are mostly merely misspellings, 3) they do not affect the contents of the text and certainly do not affect any major point which the book seeks to make.

As for 2) and 3); thank you for noticing as this is precisely, word for word, how many of us feel about Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament manuscripts.

As for 1) how do 16 equal my assertion of there being millions and millions of variants? Well, let us learn some methodology, the sort that allows Ehrman claim, “Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

I do not know how many copies Misquoting Jesus has sold but it is reported that “Within the first three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold.”

The way it works is as simple as it is deceptive: you multiply the 16 variants by how many times they have been reproduced. As the 16 have been reproduced 100,000 (in three months alone) you multiply these and so the total of variants in Misquoting Jesus equals: 1,600,000.

And that, boys and girls, is how Bart Ehrman manages to make sensational claims that gain him notoriety and quite a few shekels.

I highly recommend giving the whole post a read. It’s a better than mine, I promise!

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Please leave any comments at source. Thanks!