A review of Bart D. Ehrman鈥檚 Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why1
Note: This article is the longer version of the earlier review posted on bible.org.
For most students of the NT, a book on textual criticism is a real yawn. The tedious details are not the stuff of a bestseller. But since its publication on November 1, 2005, Misquoting Jesus2 has been circling higher and higher toward the Amazon peak. And since Bart Ehrman, one of North America鈥檚 leading textual critics, appeared on two of NPR鈥檚 programs (the Diane Rehm Show and Fresh Air with Terry Gross)鈥攂oth within the space of one week鈥攊t has been in the top fifty sellers at Amazon. Within three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold. When Neely Tucker鈥檚 interview of Ehrman in The Washington Post appeared on March 5 of this year the sales of Ehrman鈥檚 book shot up still higher. Mr. Tucker spoke of Ehrman as a 鈥渇undamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.鈥3 Nine days later, Ehrman was the guest celebrity on Jon Stewart鈥檚 The Daily Show. Stewart said that seeing the Bible as something that was deliberately corrupted by orthodox scribes made the Bible 鈥渕ore interesting鈥lmost more godly in some respects.鈥 Stewart concluded the interview by stating, 鈥淚 really congratulate you. It鈥檚 a helluva book!鈥 Within 48 hours, Misquoting Jesus was perched on top of Amazon, if only for a moment. Two months later and it鈥檚 still flying high, staying in the 25 or so books. It 鈥渉as become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of the year.鈥4 Not bad for an academic tome on a 鈥渂oring鈥 topic!
Why all the hoopla? Well, for one thing, Jesus sells. But not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. And with a book entitled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, a ready audience was created via the hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical Jesus is a figment. Ironically, almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings of Jesus. The book simply doesn鈥檛 deliver what the title promises. Ehrman preferred Lost in Transmission, but the publisher thought such a book might be perceived by the Barnes and Noble crowd as dealing with stock car racing! Even though Ehrman did not choose his resultant title, it has been a publishing coup.
More importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wants reasons not to believe, who considers the Bible a book of myths. It鈥檚 one thing to say that the stories in the Bible are legend; it鈥檚 quite another to say that many of them were added centuries later. Although Ehrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the original form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.
According to Ehrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticism鈥攁 discipline that has been around for nearly 300 years鈥攆or a lay audience.5 Apparently he does not count the several books written by KJV Only advocates, or the books that interact with them. It seems that Ehrman means that his is the first book on the general discipline of NT textual criticism written by a bona fide textual critic for a lay readership. This is most likely true.
Textual Criticism 101
Misquoting Jesus for the most part is simply NT textual criticism 101. There are seven chapters with an introduction and conclusion. Most of the book (chs. 1鈥4) is basically a popular introduction to the field, and a very good one at that. It introduces readers to the fascinating world of scribal activity, the process of canonization, and printed texts of the Greek NT. It discusses the basic method of reasoned eclecticism. All through these four chapters, various snippets鈥攙ariant readings, quotations from Fathers, debates between Protestants and Catholics鈥攁re discussed, acquainting the reader with some of the challenges of the arcane field of textual criticism.
Chapter 1 (鈥淭he Beginnings of Christian Scripture鈥) addresses why the NT books were written, how they were received, and when they were accepted as scripture.
Chapter 2 (鈥淭he Copyists of the Early Christian Writings鈥) deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity6, leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT.
Chapter 3 (鈥淭exts of the New Testament鈥) and chapter 4 (鈥淭he Quest for Origins鈥) take us from Erasmus and the first published Greek NT to the text of Westcott and Hort. Discussed are the major scholars from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. This is the most objective material in the book and makes for fascinating reading. But even here, Ehrman injects his own viewpoint by his selection of material. For example, in discussing the role that Bengel played in the history of textual criticism (109-112), Ehrman gives this pious German conservative high praise as a scholar: he was an 鈥渆xtremely careful interpreter of the biblical text鈥 (109); 鈥淏engel studied everything intensely鈥 (111). Ehrman speaks about Bengel鈥檚 breakthroughs in textual criticism (111-12), but does not mention that he was the first important scholar to articulate the doctrine of the orthodoxy of the variants. This is a curious omission because, on the one hand, Ehrman is well aware of this fact, for in the fourth edition of The Text of the New Testament, now by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman,7 which appeared just months before Misquoting Jesus, the authors note, 鈥淲ith characteristic energy and perseverance, [Bengel] procured all the editions, manuscripts, and early translations available to him. After extended study, he came to the conclusions that the variant readings were fewer in number than might have been expected and that they did not shake any article of evangelic doctrine.鈥8 On the other hand, Ehrman instead mentions J. J. Wettstein, a contemporary of Bengel, who, at the tender age of twenty assumed that these variants 鈥渃an have no weakening effect on the trustworthiness or integrity of the Scriptures,鈥9 but that years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein changed his views after he 鈥渂egan thinking seriously about his own theological convictions.鈥10 One is tempted to think that Ehrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein: like Wettstein, Ehrman started out as an evangelical when in college, but changed his views on the text and theology in his more mature years.11 But the model that Bengel supplies鈥攁 sober scholar who arrives at quite different conclusions鈥攊s quietly passed over.
What is also curiously left out was Tischendorf鈥檚 motivation for his indefatigable work of discovering manuscripts and of publishing a critical edition of the Greek text with a full apparatus. Tischendorf is widely acknowledged as the most industrious NT textual critic of all time. And what motivated him was a desire to recover the earliest form of the text鈥攁 text which he believed would vindicate orthodox Christianity against the Hegelian skepticism of F. C. Baur and his followers. None of this is mentioned in Misquoting Jesus.
Besides the selectivity regarding scholars and their opinions, these four chapters involve two curious omissions. First, there is next to no discussion about the various manuscripts. It鈥檚 almost as if external evidence is a nonstarter for Ehrman. Further, as much as he enlightens his lay readers about the discipline, the fact that he doesn鈥檛 give them the details about which manuscripts are more trustworthy, older, etc., allows him to control the information flow. Repeatedly, I was frustrated in my perusal of the book because it spoke of various readings without giving much, if any, of the data that supported them. Even in his third chapter鈥斺淭exts of the New Testament: Editions, Manuscripts, and Differences鈥濃攖here is minimal discussion of the manuscripts, and none of individual codices. In the two pages that deal specifically with the manuscripts, Ehrman speaks only about their number, nature, and variants.12
Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, 鈥淭here are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.鈥13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential鈥攊nvolving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like鈥攁nd that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book鈥攁nd repeats in interviews16鈥攊s that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18
We can illustrate things this way. There are approximately 138,000 words in the Greek NT. The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. At first blush, that is a striking amount. But in light of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider the ways in which Greek can say 鈥淛esus loves Paul鈥:
1. 峋课櫸废兾酷喀蟼 峒纬伪蟺峋 螤伪峥ξ晃课
2. 峋课櫸废兾酷喀蟼 峒纬伪蟺峋 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课
3. 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋 螤伪峥ξ晃课
4. 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课
5. 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋
6. 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋
7. 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋
8. 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 峒纬伪蟺峋
9. 峒纬伪蟺峋 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 螤伪峥ξ晃课
10. 峒纬伪蟺峋 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课
11. 峒纬伪蟺峋 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 螤伪峥ξ晃课
12. 峒纬伪蟺峋 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课
13. 峒纬伪蟺峋 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο
14. 峒纬伪蟺峋 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο
15. 峒纬伪蟺峋 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο
16. 峒纬伪蟺峋 蟿峤肝 螤伪峥ξ晃课 峤 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο
These variations only represent a small fraction of the possibilities. If the sentence used 蠁喂位蔚峥 instead of 峒纬伪蟺峋, for example, or if it began with a conjunction such as 未蔚v, 魏伪喂v, or 渭苇谓, the potential variations would grow exponentially. Factor in synonyms (such as 魏蠉蟻喂慰蟼for 峋螜畏蟽慰峥ο), spelling differences, and additional words (such as 围蟻喂蟽蟿蠈蟼, or 峒呂澄刮肯 with 螤伪峥ξ晃肯) and the list of potential variants that do not affect the essence of the statement increases to the hundreds. If such a simple sentence as 鈥淛esus loves Paul鈥 could have so many insignificant variations, a mere 400,000 variants among the NT manuscripts seems like an almost negligible amount.19
But these criticisms are minor quibbles. There is nothing really earth-shaking in the first four chapters of the book. Rather, it is in the introduction that we see Ehrman鈥檚 motive, and the last three chapters reveal his agenda. In these places he is especially provocative and given to overstatement and non sequitur. The remainder of our review will focus on this material.
Ehrman鈥檚 Evangelical Background
In the introduction, Ehrman speaks of his evangelical background (three years at Moody Bible Institute, two years at Wheaton College where he first learned Greek), followed by an M.Div. and Ph.D. at Princeton Seminary. It was at Princeton that Ehrman began to reject some of his evangelical upbringing, especially as he wrestled with the details of the text of the NT. He notes that the study of the NT manuscripts increasingly created doubts in his mind: 鈥淚 kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don鈥檛 have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes鈥攕ometimes correctly and sometimes (many times!) incorrectly?鈥20 This is an excellent question. And it is featured prominently in Misquoting Jesus, being repeated throughout the book. Unfortunately, Ehrman does not really spend much time wrestling with it directly.
While he was in the master鈥檚 program, he took a course on Mark鈥檚 Gospel from Professor Cullen Story. For his term paper, he wrote on the problem of Jesus speaking of David鈥檚 entry into the temple 鈥渨hen Abiathar was the high priest鈥 (Mark 2.26). The well-known crux is problematic for inerrancy because, according to 1 Sam 21, the time when David entered the temple was actually when Abiathar鈥檚 father, Ahimelech, was priest. But Ehrman was determined to work around what looked to be the plain meaning of the text, in order to salvage inerrancy. Ehrman tells his readers, Professor Story鈥檚 comment on the paper 鈥渨ent straight through me. He wrote, 鈥楳aybe Mark just made a mistake.鈥欌21 This was a decisive moment in Ehrman鈥檚 spiritual journey. When he concluded that Mark may have erred, 鈥渢he floodgates opened.鈥22 He began to question the historical reliability of many other biblical texts, resulting in 鈥渁 seismic change鈥 in his understanding of the Bible. 鈥淭he Bible,鈥 Ehrman notes, 鈥渂egan to appear to me as a very human book鈥 This was a human book from beginning to end.鈥23
What strikes me as most remarkable in all this is how much Ehrman tied inerrancy to the general historical reliability of the Bible. It was an all-or-nothing proposition for him. He still seems to see things in black and white terms, for he concludes his testimony with these words: 鈥淚t is a radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book鈥 This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.鈥24 There thus seems to be no middle ground in his view of the text. In short, Ehrman seems to have held to what I would call a 鈥榙omino view of doctrine.鈥 When one falls down, they all fall down. We鈥檒l return to this issue in our conclusion.
The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture
The heart of the book is chapters 5, 6, and 7. Here Ehrman especially discusses the results of the findings in his major work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.25 His concluding chapter closes in on the point that he is driving at in this section: 鈥淚t would be wrong鈥o say鈥攁s people sometimes do鈥攖hat 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.鈥26
We pause to observe two fundamental theological points being stressed in Misquoting Jesus: first, as we mentioned previously, it is irrelevant to speak of the Bible鈥檚 inerrancy because we no longer have the original documents; second, the variants in the manuscripts change the basic theology of the NT.
The Logical Fallacy in Denying an Inerrant Autograph
Although Ehrman does not really develop this first argument, it does deserve a response. We need to begin by making a careful distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Inspiration relates to the wording of the Bible, while inerrancy relates to the truth of a statement. American evangelicals generally believe that only the original text is inspired. This is not to say, however, that copies can鈥檛 be inerrant. Indeed, statements that bear no relation to scripture can be inerrant. If I say, 鈥淚 am married and have four sons, two dogs, and a cat,鈥 that鈥檚 an inerrant statement. It鈥檚 not inspired, nor at all related to scripture, but it is true. Similarly, whether Paul says 鈥渨e have peace鈥 or 鈥渓et us have peace鈥 in Rom 5.1, both statements are true (though each in a different sense), though only one is inspired. Keeping this distinction in mind as we consider the textual variants of the NT should clarify matters.
Regardless of what one thinks about the doctrine of inerrancy, the argument against it on the basis of the unknown autographs is logically fallacious. This is so for two reasons. First, we have the text of the NT somewhere in the manuscripts. There is no need for conjecture, except perhaps in one or two places.27 Second, the text we have in any viable variants is no more a problem for inerrancy than other problems where the text is secure. Now, to be sure, there are some challenges in the textual variants to inerrancy. This is not denied. But there are simply bigger fish to fry when it comes to issues that inerrancy faces. Thus, if conjectural emendation is unnecessary, and if no viable variant registers much of a blip on the radar called 鈥榩roblems for inerrancy,鈥 then not having the originals is a moot point for this doctrine. It鈥檚 not a moot point for verbal inspiration, of course, but it is for inerrancy.28
Cardinal Doctrines Affected by Textual Variants?
Ehrman鈥檚 second theological point occupies center stage in his book. It will accordingly occupy the rest of this review.
In chapters five and six, Ehrman discusses several passages that involve variants that allegedly affect core theological beliefs. He summarizes his findings in his concluding chapter as follows:
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 [Mark 1.41]? Was he completely distraught in the face of death [Heb 2.8鈥9]? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed [Mark 16.9鈥20]? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning [John 7.53鈥8.11]? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament [1 John 5.7鈥8]? Is Jesus actually called 鈥渢he unique God鈥 there [John 1.18]? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come [Matt 24.36]? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us.29
It is apparent that such a summary is intended to focus on the major problem passages that Ehrman has uncovered. Thus, following the well-worn rabbinic principle of a maiore ad minus30, or arguing from the greater to the lesser, we will address just these seven texts.
The Problem With Problem Passages
Three of these passages have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholars鈥攊ncluding most evangelical NT scholars鈥攆or well over a century (Mark 16.9鈥20; John 7.53鈥8.11; and 1 John 5.7鈥8).31 Yet Ehrman writes as though the excision of such texts could shake up our theological convictions. Such is hardly the case. (We will suspend discussion of one of these passages, 1 John 5.7鈥8, until the end.)
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae
At the same time, Ehrman implicitly raises a valid issue. A glance at virtually any English Bible today reveals that the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae are to be found in their usual places. Thus, not only do the KJV and NKJV have these passages (as would be expected), but so do the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and NET. Yet the scholars who produced these translations, by and large, do not subscribe to the authenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enough: they don鈥檛 show up in the oldest and best manuscripts and their internal evidence is decidedly against authenticity. Why then are they still in these Bibles?
The answer to this question varies. For some, they seem to be in the Bibles because of a tradition of timidity. There are seemingly good reasons for this. The rationale is typically that no one will buy a particular version if it lacks these famous passages. And if they don鈥檛 buy the version, it can鈥檛 influence Christians. Some translations have included the pericope adulterae because of mandate from the papal authorities declaring the passage to be scripture. The NEB/REB include it at the end of the Gospels, rather than in its traditional location. The TNIV and NET have both passages in smaller font with brackets around them. Smaller type of course makes it harder to read from the pulpit. The NET adds a lengthy discussion about the inauthenticity of the verses. Most translations mention that these pericopae are not found in the oldest manuscripts, but such a comment is rarely noticed by readers today. How do we know this? From the shock waves produced by Ehrman鈥檚 book. In radio, TV, and newspaper interviews with Ehrman, the story of the woman caught in adultery is almost always the first text brought up as inauthentic, and the mention is calculated to alarm the audience.
Letting the public in on scholarly secrets about the text of the Bible is not new. Edward Gibbon, in his six-volume bestseller, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted that the Comma Johanneum, or Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5.7鈥8, was not authentic.32 This scandalized the British public of the eighteenth century, for their only Bible was the Authorized Version, which contained the formula. 鈥淥thers had done [this] before him, but only in academic and learned circles. Gibbon did so before the general public, in language designed to offend.鈥33 Yet by the time the Revised Version appeared in 1885, no trace of the Comma was to be found in it. Today the text is not printed in modern translations, and it hardly raises an eyebrow.
Ehrman has followed in Gibbon鈥檚 train by exposing the public to the inauthenticity of Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11. The problem here, though, is a bit different. Strong emotional baggage is especially attached to the latter text. For years, it was my favorite passage that was not in the Bible. I would even preach on it as true historical narrative, even after I rejected its literary/canonical authenticity. And we all know of preachers who can鈥檛 quite give it up, even though they, too, have doubts about it. But there are two problems with this approach. First, in terms of popularity between these two texts, John 8 is the overwhelming favorite, yet its external credentials are significantly worse than Mark 16鈥檚. The same preacher who declares the Markan passage to be inauthentic extols the virtues of John 8. This inconsistency is appalling. Something is amiss in our theological seminaries when one鈥檚 feelings are allowed to be the arbiter of textual problems. Second, the pericope adulterae is most likely not even historically true. It was probably a story conflated from two different accounts.34 Thus, the excuse that one can proclaim it because the story really happened is apparently not valid.
In retrospect, keeping these two pericopae in our Bibles rather than relegating them to the footnotes seems to have been a bomb just waiting to explode. All Ehrman did was to light the fuse. One lesson we must learn from Misquoting Jesus is that those in ministry need to close the gap between the church and the academy. We have to educate believers. Instead of trying to isolate laypeople from critical scholarship, we need to insulate them. They need to be ready for the barrage, because it is coming.35 The intentional dumbing down of the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection from Christ. Ehrman is to be thanked for giving us a wake-up call.
This is not to say that everything Ehrman has written in this book is of that ilk. But these three passages are. Again, we need to stress: these texts change no fundamental doctrine, no core belief. Evangelical scholars have athetized them for over a century without disturbing one iota of orthodoxy.
The remaining four textual problems, however, tell a different story. Ehrman appeals either to an interpretation or to evidence that most scholars consider, at best, doubtful.
Translations are roughly united in how they treat Heb 2.9b. The NET is representative: 鈥渂y God鈥檚 grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.鈥 Ehrman suggests that 鈥渂y God鈥檚 grace鈥濃蠂维蟻喂蟿喂 胃蔚慰蠀'鈥攊s a secondary reading. Instead, he argues that 鈥渁part from God,鈥 or 蠂蠅蟻峤断 胃蔚慰峥, is what the author originally wrote. There are but three Greek manuscripts that have this reading, all from the tenth century or later. Codex 1739, however, is one of them, and it is a copy of an early and decent manuscript. 蠂蠅蟻峤断 胃蔚慰峥 is also discussed in several fathers, one Vulgate manuscript, and some copies of the Peshitta.36 Many scholars would dismiss such paltry evidence without further ado. If they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because even though it has a poor pedigree, 蠂蠅蟻峤断 胃蔚慰峥 is the harder reading and thus may require some explanation, since scribes tended to smooth out the wording of the text. As well, something needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a reading is an unintentional change, the canon of the harder reading is invalid. The hardest reading will be a nonsense reading, something that cannot be created on purpose. Although 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 is apparently the harder reading,37 it can be explained as an accidental alteration. It is most likely due either to a 鈥榮cribal lapse鈥38 in which an inattentive copyist confused 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 for 蠂维蟻喂蟿喂, or 鈥榓 marginal gloss鈥 in which a scribe was thinking of 1 Cor 15.27 which, like Heb 2.8, quotes Ps 8.6 in reference to God鈥檚 subjection of all things to Christ.39
Without going into the details of Ehrman鈥檚 defense of 蠂蠅蟻委蟼, we simply wish to note four things. First, he overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct. After three pages of discussion of this text in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he pronounces the verdict: 鈥淭he external evidence notwithstanding, Hebrews 2:9 must have originally said that Jesus died 鈥榓part from God.鈥欌40 He鈥檚 still seeing things in black and white terms. Second, Ehrman鈥檚 text-critical views are getting dangerously close to rigorous eclecticism.41 The external data seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to want to see theological corruption in the text. Third, even though he is certain about his verdict, his mentor, Bruce Metzger, is not. A year after Orthodox Corruption was published, Metzger鈥檚 second edition of his Textual Commentary appeared. The UBS committee still gave the 蠂维蟻喂蟿喂 胃蔚慰峥 reading the palm, but this time upgrading their conviction to an 鈥楢鈥 rating.42 Finally, even assuming that 蠂蠅蟻峤断 胃蔚慰峥 is the correct reading here, Ehrman has not made out a case that this is a variant that 鈥渁ffect[s] the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.鈥43 He argues that 鈥淸t]he less attested reading is also more consistent with the theology of Hebrews.鈥44 He adds that the author 鈥渞epeatedly emphasizes that Jesus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of God. His sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. Moreover, God did not intervene in his passion and did nothing to minimize his pain. Jesus died 鈥榓part from God.鈥欌45 If this is the view of Jesus throughout Hebrews, how does the variant that Ehrman adopts in 2.9 change that portrait? In his Orthodox Corruption, Ehrman says that 鈥Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus, in the face of death, beseeching God with loud cries and tears.鈥46 But that this text is speaking of Jesus 鈥榠n the face of death鈥 is not at all clear (nor does Ehrman defend this view). Further, he builds on this in his concluding chapter of Misquoting Jesus鈥攅ven though he has never established the point鈥攚hen he asks, 鈥淲as [Jesus] completely distraught in the face of death?鈥47 He goes even further in Orthodox Corruption. I am at a loss to understand how Ehrman can claim that the author of Hebrews seems to know 鈥渙f passion traditions in which Jesus was terrified in the face of death鈥48 unless it is by connecting three dots, all of which are dubious鈥攙iz., reading 蠂蠅蟻峤断 胃蔚慰峥in Heb 2.9, seeing 5.7 as referring principally to the death of Christ and that his prayers were principally for himself,49 and then regarding the loud cries there to reflect his terrified state. Ehrman seems to be building his case on linked hypotheses, which is a poor foundation at best.
In the first chapter of Mark鈥檚 Gospel, a leper approaches Jesus and asks him to heal him: 鈥淚f you are willing, you can make me clean鈥 (Mark 1.40). Jesus鈥 response is recorded in the Nestle-Aland text as follows: 魏伪峤垛 蟽蟺位伪纬蠂谓喂蟽胃蔚喂鈥蟼 峒愇合勎滴轿毕 蟿峤次 蠂蔚峥栂佄 伪峤愊勎酷喀 峒ハ埼毕勎 魏伪峤垛 位苇纬蔚喂 伪峤愊勧砍脟路 胃苇位蠅,魏伪胃伪蟻委蟽胃畏蟿喂 (鈥渁nd moved with compassion, he stretched out [his] hand and touched him and said to him, 鈥業 am willing; be cleansed鈥). Instead of 蟽蟺位伪纬蠂谓喂蟽胃蔚喂鈥蟼 (鈥榤oved with compassion鈥) a few Western witnesses50 read 峤蟻纬喂蟽胃蔚委蟼 (鈥榖ecoming angry鈥). Jesus鈥 motivation for this healing apparently hangs in the balance. Even though the UBS4 gives 蟽蟺位伪纬蠂谓喂蟽胃蔚喂鈥蟼 a B rating, an increasing number of exegetes are starting to argue for the authenticity of 峤蟻纬喂蟽胃蔚委蟼. In a Festschrift for Gerald Hawthorne in 2003, Ehrman made an impressive argument for its authenticity.51 Four years earlier, a doctoral dissertation by Mark Proctor was written in defense of ojrgisqeivV.52 The reading has also made its way into the TNIV, and is seriously entertained in the NET. We won鈥檛 take the time to consider the arguments here. At this stage I am inclined to think it is most likely original. Either way, for the sake of argument, assuming that the 鈥榓ngry鈥 reading is authentic, what does this tell us about Jesus that we didn鈥檛 know before?
Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus鈥 anger in this passage, it changes our picture of Jesus in Mark significantly. In fact, this textual problem is his lead example in chapter 5 (鈥淥riginals That Matter鈥), a chapter whose central thesis is that some variants 鈥渁ffect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.鈥53 This thesis is overstated in general, and particularly for Mark鈥檚 Gospel. In Mark 3.5 Jesus is said to be angry鈥攚ording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. And in Mark 10.14 he is indignant at his disciples.
Ehrman, of course, knows this. In fact, he argues implicitly in the Hawthorne Festschrift that Jesus鈥 anger in Mark 1.41 perfectly fits into the picture that Mark elsewhere paints of Jesus. He says, for example, 鈥淢ark described Jesus as angry, and, at least in this instance, scribes took offense. This comes as no surprise; apart from a fuller understanding of Mark鈥檚 portrayal, Jesus鈥 anger is difficult to understand.鈥54 Ehrman even lays out the fundamental principle that he sees running through Mark: 鈥淛esus is angered when anyone questions his authority or ability to heal鈥攐r his desire to heal.鈥55 Now, for sake of argument, let鈥檚 assume that not only is Ehrman鈥檚 textual reconstruction correct, but his interpretation of 峤蟻纬喂蟽胃蔚委蟼 in Mark 1.41 is correct鈥攏ot only in that passage but in the totality of Mark鈥檚 presentation of Jesus.56 If so, how then does an angry Jesus in 1.41 鈥渁ffect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament鈥? According to Ehrman鈥檚 own interpretation, 峤蟻纬喂蟽胃蔚委蟼 only strengthens the image we see of Jesus in this Gospel by making it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his anger. If this reading is Exhibit A in Ehrman鈥檚 fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little or nothing to alter the overall portrait of Jesus that Mark paints. Here is another instance, then, in which Ehrman鈥檚 theological conclusion is more provocative than the evidence suggests.
In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus speaks about the time of his own return. Remarkably, he confesses that he does not know exactly when that will be. In most modern translations of Matt 24.36, the text basically says, 鈥淏ut as for that day and hour no one knows it鈥攏either the angels in heaven, nor the Son鈥攅xcept the Father alone.鈥 However, many manuscripts, including some early and important ones, lack 慰峤愇瘁讲 峤 蠀峒毕屜. Whether 鈥渘or the Son鈥 is authentic or not is disputed.57 Nevertheless, Ehrman again speaks confidently on the issue.58 The importance of this textual variant for the thesis of Misquoting Jesus is difficult to assess, however. Ehrman alludes to Matt 24.36 in his conclusion, apparently to underscore his argument that textual variants alter basic doctrines.59 His initial discussion of this passage certainly leaves this impression as well.60 But if he does not mean this, then he is writing more provocatively than is necessary, misleading his readers. And if he does mean it, he has overstated his case.
What is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13.32鈥斺淏ut as for that day or hour no one knows it鈥攏either the angels in heaven, nor the Son鈥攅xcept the Father.鈥61 Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24.36 changes one鈥檚 basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark. Not once in Misquoting Jesus does Ehrman mention Mark 13.32, even though he explicitly discusses Matt 24.36 at least six times, seemingly to the effect that this reading impacts our fundamental understanding of Jesus.62 But does the wording change our basic understanding of Matthew鈥檚 view of Jesus? Even that is not the case. Even if Matt 24.36 originally lacked 鈥渘or the Son,鈥 the fact that the Father alone (蔚峒 渭峤 峤 蟺伪蟿峤聪 渭蠈谓慰蟼) has this knowledge certainly implies the Son鈥檚 ignorance (and the 鈥渁lone鈥 is only found in Matt 24.36, not in Mark 13.32). Again, this important detail is not mentioned in Misquoting Jesus, nor even in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
In John 1.18b, Ehrman argues that 鈥淪on鈥 instead of 鈥淕od鈥 is the authentic reading. But he goes beyond the evidence by stating that if 鈥淕od鈥 were original the verse would be calling Jesus 鈥渢he unique God.鈥 The problem with such a translation, in Ehrman鈥檚 words, is that 鈥淸t]he term unique God must refer to God the Father himself鈥攐therwise he is not unique. But if the term refers to the Father, how can it be used of the Son?鈥63 Ehrman鈥檚 sophisticated grammatical argument for this is not found in Misquoting Jesus, but is detailed in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture:
The more common expedient for those who opt for [峤] 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼, but who recognize that its rendering as 鈥渢he unique God鈥 is virtually impossible in a Johannine context, is to understand the adjective substantivally, and to construe the entire second half of John 1:18 as a series of appositions, so that rather than reading 鈥渢he unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,鈥 the text should be rendered 鈥渢he unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father.鈥 There is something attractive about the proposal. It explains what the text might have meant to a Johannine reader and thereby allows for the text of the generally superior textual witnesses. Nonetheless, the solution is entirely implausible.
鈥. It is true that 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 can elsewhere be used as a substantive (= the unique one, as in v. 14); all adjectives can. But the proponents of this view have failed to consider that it is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must here press the syntactical point: when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection? No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowledge, no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage.
The result is that taking the term 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼 as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun creates an impossible sense.64
Ehrman鈥檚 argument assumes that 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼cannot normally be substantival, even though it is so used in v 14鈥攁s he admits. There are many critiques that could be made of his argument, but chief among them is this: his absolutizing of the grammatical situation is incorrect. His challenge (鈥渘o one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage鈥) is here taken up. There are, indeed, examples in which an adjective that is juxtaposed to a noun of the same grammatical concord is not functioning adjectivally but substantivally.65
John 6:70:魏伪峤 峒愇 峤懳坚慷谓 蔚峒废 未喂维尾慰位蠈蟼 峒愊兿勎刮.Here 未喂维尾慰位慰蟼 is functioning as a noun, even though it is an adjective. And 蔚峒废, the pronominal adjective, is the subject related to 未喂维尾慰位慰蟼, the predicate nominative.
Rom 1.30: 魏伪蟿伪位维位慰蠀蟼 胃蔚慰蟽蟿蠀纬蔚峥栂 峤懳蚕佄瓜兿勧桨蟼 峤懴蔚蟻畏蠁维谓慰蠀蟼 峒位伪味蠈谓伪蟼,峒愊單迪呄佄迪勧桨蟼 魏伪魏峥段,纬慰谓蔚峥ο兾刮 峒蟺蔚喂胃蔚峥栂(鈥渟landerers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents鈥濃攖rue adjectives in italics)
Gal 3:9: 蟿峥 蟺喂蟽蟿峥 峋螒尾蟻伪维渭(鈥渨ith Abraham, the believer鈥 as the NASB has it; NRSV has 鈥淎braham who believed鈥; NIV has 鈥淎braham, the man of faith鈥). Regardless of how it is translated, here is an adjective wedged between an article and a noun that is functioning substantivally, in apposition to the noun.
Eph 2:20: 峤勎较勎肯 峒魏蟻慰纬蠅谓喂伪委慰蠀 伪峤愊勎酷喀 围蟻喂蟽蟿慰峥 峋螜畏蟽慰峥(鈥淐hrist Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone鈥): although 峒魏蟻慰纬蠅谓喂伪峥栁肯 is an adjective, it seems to be functioning substantivally here (though it could possibly be a predicate adjective, I suppose, as a predicate genitive). LSJ lists this as an adjective; LN lists it as a noun. It may thus be similar to 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 in its development.
1 Tim 1:9: 未喂魏伪委峥 谓蠈渭慰蟼 慰峤 魏蔚峥栂勎蔽,峒谓蠈渭慰喂蟼 未峤 魏伪峤 峒谓蠀蟺慰蟿维魏蟿慰喂蟼,峒蟽蔚尾苇蟽喂 魏伪峤 峒佄嘉毕佅勏壩晃酷繓蟼,峒谓慰蟽委慰喂蟼 魏伪峤 尾蔚尾萎位慰喂蟼,蟺伪蟿蟻慰位峥次蔽瓜 魏伪峤 渭畏蟿蟻慰位峥次蔽瓜,峒谓未蟻慰蠁蠈谓慰喂蟼 (law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers [adjectives in italics]): this text clearly shows that Ehrman has overstated his case, for 尾蔚尾萎位慰喂蟼 does not modify 蟺伪蟿蟻慰位峥次蔽瓜 but instead is substantival, as are the five previous descriptive terms.
1 Pet 1:1:峒愇何晃滴合勎酷繓蟼 蟺伪蟻蔚蟺喂未萎渭慰喂蟼 (鈥渢he elect, sojourners鈥): This text is variously interpreted, but our point is simply that it could fit either scheme for John 1.18. It thus qualifies for texts of which Ehrman says 鈥渘o one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage.鈥
2 Pet 2:5:峒愊單滴兾毕勎 峒位位峤 峤勎澄次课课 螡峥段 未喂魏伪喂慰蟽蠉谓畏蟼 魏萎蟻蠀魏伪 (鈥渄id not spare [the world], but [preserved] an eighth, Noah, a preacher of righteousness鈥). The adjective 鈥榚ighth鈥 stands in apposition to Noah; otherwise, if it modified Noah, the force would be 鈥榓n eighth Noah鈥 as though there were seven other Noahs!66
In light of these examples (which are but a few of those found in the NT), we can thus respond directly the question that Ehrman poses: 鈥渨hen is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?鈥 His remark that 鈥淣o Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity鈥 is simply not borne out by the evidence. And we have only looked at a sampling of the NT. If NT authors can create such expressions, this internal argument against the reading 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼loses considerable weight.
It now becomes a matter of asking whether there are sufficient contextual clues that 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 is in fact functioning substantivally. Ehrman has already provided both of them: (1) in John, it is unthinkable that the Word could become the unique God in 1.18 (in which he alone, and not the Father, is claimed to have divine status) only to have that status removed repeatedly throughout the rest of the Gospel. Thus, assuming that 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼 is authentic, we are in fact almost driven to the sense that Ehrman regards as grammatically implausible but contextually necessary: 鈥渢he unique one, himself God鈥︹ (2) that 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 is already used in v 14 as a substantive67 becomes the strongest contextual argument for seeing its substantival function repeated four verses later. Immediately after Ehrman admits that this adjective can be used substantivally and is so used in v 14, he makes his grammatical argument which is intended to lay the gauntlet down or to shut the coffin lid (choose your clich茅) on the force of the connection with v 14. But if the grammatical argument won鈥檛 cut it, then the substantival use of 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 in v 14 should stand as an important contextual clue. Indeed, in light of the well-worn usage in biblical Greek, we would almost expect 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓萎蟼 to be used substantivally and with the implication of sonship in 1.18.
Now, as our only concern here is to wrestle with what 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼 would mean if it were original, rather than argue for its authenticity, there seems to be sufficient evidence to demonstrate a force such as 鈥渢he unique one, himself God鈥 as a suitable gloss for this reading. Both the internal and external evidence are on its side; the only thing holding back such a variant is the interpretation that it was a modalistic reading.68 But the basis for that is a grammatical assumption that we have demonstrated not to have weight. In conclusion, both 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 蠀峒毕屜 and 渭慰谓慰纬蔚谓峤聪 胃蔚蠈蟼fit comfortably within orthodoxy; no seismic theological shift occurs if one were to pick one reading over the other. Although some modern translations have been persuaded by Ehrman鈥檚 argument here (such as the HCSB), the argument is hardly airtight. When either variant is examined carefully, both are seen to be within the realm of orthodox teaching.
Suffice it to say that if 鈥淕od鈥 is authentic here, it is hardly necessary to translate the phrase as 鈥渢he unique God,鈥 as though that might imply that Jesus alone is God. Rather, as the NET renders it (see also the NIV and NRSV), John 1.18 says, 鈥淣o one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.鈥
In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best.69 Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong. These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. For example, Gordon Fee said of this work that 鈥淸u]nfortunately, Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.鈥70 Yet, the conclusions that Ehrman put forth in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture are still offered in Misquoting Jesus without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around.71 For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight that he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.
Yet Ehrman apparently thinks they have. When discussing Wettstein鈥檚 views of the NT text, Ehrman notes that 鈥淲ettstein began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions, and became attuned to the problem that the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God.鈥72 Remarkably, Ehrman seems to represent this conclusion as not only Wettstein鈥檚, but his own, too. To the extent that Wettstein was moving toward the modern critical text and away from the TR, his arguments against the deity of Christ were unfounded because Christ鈥檚 deity is actually more clearly seen in the critical Greek text than in the TR.73 Although Ehrman does not discuss most of the passages that he thinks are spurious, he does do so in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (especially 264-73). But the discussion is not really fleshed out and involves internal contradictions. In short, he doesn鈥檛 make out his case. The deity of Christ is undisturbed by any viable variants.
Finally, regarding 1 John 5.7鈥8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the 鈥淭rinitarian formula,鈥 since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman鈥檚 book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it was not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirmed the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn鈥檛 get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Constantinople鈥檚 statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they got out of the NT.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because a particular verse does not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT. In this case, anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.
Conclusion
In sum, Ehrman鈥檚 latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes up short on genuine substance about his primary contention. I beg your indulgence as I reflect on two pastoral points here.
First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in caring for God鈥檚 people. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn鈥檛 hold back on telling his students what鈥檚 what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don鈥檛 let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code. Is that really the pedagogical effect Ehrman was seeking? I have to assume that he knew what kind of a reaction he would get from this book, for he does not change the impression at all in his interviews. Being provocative, even at the risk of being misunderstood, seems to be more important to him than being honest even at the risk of being boring. But a good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.74
Second, what I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines starts to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. For a clarification of what I mean by "core beliefs" and "more peripheral doctrines" see "My Take on Inerrancy." It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman鈥檚 faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became 鈥榓 fairly happy agnostic.鈥 I may be wrong about Ehrman鈥檚 own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a 鈥榮lippery slope鈥 on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say rather that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that鈥檚 when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have a significant impact on the core. In other words, the evangelical community will continue to produce liberal scholars until we learn to nuance our faith commitments a bit more, until we learn to see Christ as the center of our lives and scripture as that which points to him. If our starting point is embracing propositional truths about the nature of scripture rather than personally embracing Jesus Christ as our Lord and King, we鈥檒l be on that slippery slope, and we鈥檒l take a lot of folks down with us.
I grieve for what has happened to an acquaintance of mine, a man I have known and admired鈥攁nd continue to admire鈥攆or over a quarter of a century. It gives me no joy to put forth this review. But from where I sit, it seems that Bart鈥檚 black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I鈥檝e ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them.75 Just months before Misquoting Jesus appeared, the fourth edition of Metzger鈥檚 Text of the New Testament was published. The first three editions were written solely by Metzger and bore the title The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. The fourth edition, now co-authored with Ehrman, makes such a title seem almost disingenuous. The reader of Misquoting Jesus might be tempted to think that the subtitle of Metzger鈥檚 fourth edition should have been called simply Its Transmission and Corruption.76
3 Neely Tucker, 鈥淭he Book of Bart: In the Bestseller 鈥楳isquoting Jesus,鈥 Agnostic Author Bart Ehrman Picks Apart the Gospels That Made a Disbeliever Out of Him,鈥 Washington Post, March 5, 2006. Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html.
21 Ibid., 9. For a treatment of the problem in Mark 2.26, see Daniel B. Wallace, 鈥Mark 2.26 and the Problem of Abiathar,鈥 ETS SW regional meeting, March 13, 2004, available at /page.php?page_id=3839.