In Which I Expound on MY Area of Expertise
I'm finally done with all three of the books I bought in the Denver Airport almost a week ago. I know, it took me a while, but I've been distracted. Click on one of the links below to jump to that section of the review.
The Areas of My Expertise
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Wizards
The Areas of My Expertise
John Hodgman
It might help if you knew that the full title of this book is"An Almanac of COMPLETE WORLD KNOWLEDGE Compiled with Instructive Annotation and Arranged in Useful Order by Me,Hodgman's style is dry and deadpan, and is reminiscent of both Lemony Snicket and A Portrait of Yo Mama as a Young Man. A perfectly hilarious book of very useful made-up facts.
JOHN HODGMAN
a Professional Writer, in
THE AREAS OF MY EXPERTISE
"WHICH INCLUDE: Matters Historical, Matters Literary, Matters Cryptozoological, Hobo Matters, Food, Drink, & Cheese (a Kind of Food), Squirrels & Lobsters & Eels, Haircuts, Utopia, What Will Happen in the Future, and Most Other Subjects"
(You can also read Eric D. Snider's review on his blog.)
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Bart D. Ehrman
A couple months ago, I read Gerd Lüdemann's The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. I am perfectly willing to believe that any or all of the Bible is fiction, but I was often disappointed by Dr. Lüdemann's arguments, or lack thereof. So it was with great pleasure that I read Dr. Ehrman's excellently argued book.Wizards
Despite its title, Misquoting Jesus is much less about the words of Jesus himself and more about errors and changes in the New Testament in general. Ehrman begins by sketching his own history as a Born-Again Christian who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible (more specifically, that it was the product of "verbal, plenary inspiration" directly from God). Upon starting his university studies in textual criticism, however, he was forced to confront the fact that Biblical inerrancy is a myth that simply doesn't stand up to the evidence. The fact is that we don't have a single original manuscript of any of the books of the New Testament—not even close. The earliest copies we have are themselves copies of copies of copies, all of these copies made during the first centuries AD by amateur copyists who frequently made mistakes. Furthermore, the historical sections of the New Testament (i.e., the Gospels and Acts) were written decades after the events they narrate took place, so we can't even consider the first manuscript to be a faithful record. According to Ehrman, if you compare all the sources we have, there are more places of variation between manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
What is astonishing is that the contents of Ehrman's book are not already common knowledge. Most of the instances of scribal error, deletions and additions he mentions have been known for at least a century; it really is a shame that the public at large isn't aware of the history of one of the most influential and important books in Western history.
Believers should not shy away from this book, as it is not at all confrontational—Ehrman makes it very clear that, while he is now an agnostic, he has no wish to convert anybody, and that many of his esteemed colleagues (including his mentor, Bruce Metzger) are still believers.
edited by Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois
My unalloyed delight in the above two volumes unfortunately did not carry over to this fantasy anthology, at least not completely. Things got off to an auspicious start with the destined-to-be-classic "The Witch's Headstone" by Neil Gaiman, but unfortunately most of the eighteen stories in the collection were fairly lackluster, including those by Alone and Unobserved faves Patricia A. McKillip, Nancy Kress, Peter S. Beagle and Garth Nix. Some standouts includeOverall, I recommend this title, but be prepared to sift for the gems.
- "The Witch's Headstone" by Neil Gaiman
Bod has been warned to keep away from the witch's grave, outside the graveyard in the Potter's Field, but his curiosity may prove his undoing.
(You can watch a video of Neil Gaiman reading "The Witch's Headstone" as it will appear in The Graveyard Book on YouTube.)- "The Stranger's Hands" by Tad Williams
This little tale examines the consequences of receiving one's heart's desire.- "Winter's Wife" by Elizabeth Hand
A tale of magic both quick and cold that comes to a forest in Maine.- "A Diorama of the Infernal Regions, or The Devil's Ninth Question" by Andy Duncan
"My name is Pearleen Sunday, though I was always called Pearl, and this is the story of how I met the widow of Flatland House and her 473 dead friends and sang a duet with the Devil's son-in-law and earned a wizard's anger by setting that wizard free."- "Billy and the Wizard" by Terry Bisson
Billy plays with dolls and consorts with wizards and the Devil in this clever, quirky tale.- "The Magic Animal" by Gene Wolfe
As a favor to a fairy, Viviane steps across time and space to lay the groundwork for a plan that she herself does not fully understand.- "Stonefather" by Orson Scott Card
Water worship and water magic were the only tradition Runnel knew, but that changed when he was hired as a servant at a stonemage's house—the only stonemage in the country. Runnel cannot know that his arrival will awaken the ancient rivalry that has existed between stone and water since the seige of Mitherhome.
8 comments:
While I mostly enjoyed Misquoting Jesus, I was a bit disconcerted by his chain of logic that since something was not, supposedly, "original" it never happened. Like the bleeding from every pore thing. Sure, maybe it wasn't in the first edition of the Gospel, but couldn't it have been an oral legend/fact that just got added later?
That's true, I did notice that, but had forgotten about it. My personal opinion is that you have to remember that he's approaching these accounts first as literature and second as history—and that in both cases he takes the parsimonious, scientific view. I.e., the account of Jesus bleeding from every pore is found only in that one passage in Luke; the Gospel of Luke was written several decades after Christ's death; it is fairly clear that that particular passage was inserted later, and it is not hard to imagine why it was inserted; therefore the more parsimonious assumption is that it is a made-up story. That doesn't mean it necessarily is, just that it's a more reasonable assumption than that a true story was passed on, unchanged, for half a century, until it was finally inserted into the written record.
Understand that this is the most reasonable assumption from the point of view of a historian, who has nothing whatever to say about theology. Naturally, if one's theology leads one to accept the story as true, then that's a completely differnt matter, and outside of the scope of Ehrman's book.
I can see what you're saying, but is it really that much to ask a group of mostly non-literate people to keep a story alive through oral tradition for even a whole century?
Basically, I felt like Ehrman was still sort of caught up in Biblical inerrancy and science and not enough in theology. Thus we see a major problem I have with textual criticism. It generally denies the fact that some texts, such as the Bible, might just defy standard practice.
I'm currently reading Ehrman's beginning textbook, The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings, 2nd ed., in which he addresses your concern (and the concern of many of his readers) in greater depth. In the "Preface to the Second Edition," he writes,
One matter that has been widely raised by colleagues who use the book (or at least have given passing thought to using it) involves the issue of faith and history. Most readers are grateful that I broach the matter and are struck by how poignantly it comes to the fore when one adopts, even with beginning students, a rigorously historical approach to the New Testament. But a number of readers wish that I would not only raise the issue but also help students resolve it.
In the first edition, I quite consciously decided not to do so. My decision was based on a number of interrelated factors: first, that people of faith have different kinds of faith, and there is not one solution to the problem of how history relates to them; second, that despite the claims of some modern-day apologists among us, there is not a historical solution to the problem of faith and history, but only "faith" solutions, and since this introduction is historically rather than confessionally oriented, to suggest a particular solution (or even a particular range of solutions) would be to compromise its historical character; third, and perhaps most importantly, some problems are more profitably raised than resolved. That is to say—as is the case even with a number of hisotical conundrums—it can be useful and productive to raise an intractable problem and urge students to resolve it as they see fit. Wrestling with a problem is sometimes far more fruitful than learning "the" answer (or even than being asked to choose from among a set of possible answers, as if the question of faith and history were part of a multiple choice exam).
I'm still, for the most part, persuaded by these arguments. And so, while I've tried to clarify and sharpen the issues a bit . . . I have not moved further to resolve them. I hope students will be driven to decide for themselves whether historical study of the New Testament is at odds with, compatible with, or even necessary to their own commitments of faith. If this were a matter of multiple choice, those would be the options.
The real problem, of course, is how to work any one of them out to one's own satisfaction.
In other words, Ehrman has deliberately eschewed any theological interpretation of his work, which then frees the reader to make judgments for him- or herself.
I think I’m going to head over to my local bookstore and pick up Ehrman’s book. Since delicately traipsing into agnosticism, I find that most of the titles I am recommended are from authors who seem to have an ax to grind (you know, the kind who would stand in front of the Conference Center burning garments and howling so forcefully they flick spittle on passersby), or I’m quickly steered toward apologists. From your review, I get the impression that Ehrman simply lays out the information and is more interested in fact dissemination than converting others to his hedonistic ways.
I’ll call my mother and interrupt her “O’Reilly Factor” time to inform her that I’m picking it up at my local Osama’s Homo-Abortion Pot & Commie Jewporium.
I do have one bit of advice, however. Next time you review a book, be sure to end it with: “But don’t take my word for it (Ba da DUM)!” ala LeVar Burton from Reading Rainbow.
I'd say that's a good characterization of Ehrman's apparent philosophy. That hasn't stopped Christians from reacting as if he were attacking their beliefs, however; just go to Amazon and check out all the treatises people have published in response to his book ("Misquotes in MISQUOTING JESUS: Why You Can Still Believe," et al.).
Apologists are all well and good—some of my favorite authors are atheist apologists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al.)—but you can't trust them to provide unbiased information. That's not what you go to an apologist for. An apologist without bias is a failed apologist.
But don’t take my word for it (Ba da DUM)!
LOL Oh, yeah, right. I forgot. Sorry.
Post a Comment