Misquoting Jesus Chapter 4

The most significant thought I absorbed from the reading of the book Misquoting Jesus was not stated overtly in Chapter 4, but once I learned this principle it permeated the rest of my reading. Bart Ehrman suggests throughout this work that the writers of the Christian books of scripture each have their own perpectives and valuable things to teach us. Textual criticism can bring us closer to the actual words of the authors and help reconstruct their understanding of the Christian faith. (p.14) Previous to my reading this book I approached the New Testament with a "harmonization" tactic, attempting to fit the ideas of the different authors into a cohesive whole. With Ehrman's instruction I see the value of taking each writer on his own terms and discovering their intent in writing. For example, Luke wishes to present Jesus as full of confidence in his divine mission, never losing control, never in anguish over his fate. (p. 143) This portrayal will necessarily conflict with an author such as Mark, who focuses attention on Jesus' agony. Mark emphasizes Jesus' distress and agitation at Gethsemane, his thrice-repeated prayer for the cup to be removed, and his despair on the cross. (p. 142)
Understanding this paradigm opens one up to studying the writers of the New Testament books with a deeper understanding. Their themes and motivations become more clear despite mistakes in transmission and the changes of scribes to try to harmonize the accounts and clarify the doctrine.

Chapter 4 discusses textual variations in detail. Several conclusions can be drawn from the fact that so many textual differences exist. Ehrman mentions three main conclusions drawn from a faith-based perspective:

1. From the tradition of Richard Simon, a French Catholic author: the Christian faith can not be based solely on scripture but requires the apostolic tradition preserved in the (Catholic) Church. (p. 102)

2 From Daniel Whitby's response to Mill's Apparatus: Errors are a result of the frailties of men, but "God would never allow the text to be corrupted to the point that it could not adequately achieve its divine aim and purpose." (p. 85)

3. Errors exist but textual criticism enables modern scholars to reconstruct the original words, so the foundation of faith is secured. A corollary to this view is that errors exist because of he multiplicity of manuscripts, but variations actually help us to discover more correct readings. (p. 105)

I am interested in these three faith-based perspectives, especially with respect to how the LDS church responds to textual variation. There is no attempt by Mormon writers to deny the existence of variation. The 8th Article of Faith states that we believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," with an understanding that much of it has not been transmitted in it's original form. I've seen conclusions #1 and #2 above promulgated in LDS thought. Although we recognize errors in the scriptures, they are not so dire as to lead members away from salvation. Additionally, the Church has an apostolic tradition which will correct deviations which its membership needs to be aware of.

Besides the example of Joseph Smith, I have not seen any attempt by the Church to embrace textual criticism as a method of reconstructing the original autographs of Biblical authors. (Conclusion #3 above) Joseph did do some work in "reconstructing" texts, mainly by revelation and his understanding of what the texts meant to convey. But since that time I have seen little interest by LDS scholars to utilize textual criticism. Mogget's recent post on LDS Biblical scholarship is a point in fact.

Perhaps some of the others following this book discussion might wish to speculate whether the LDS Church might be able to benefit from textual criticism or what holds them back from doing so. (See also this review, which discusses further aspects important to Chapter 4.)