回答四五味的「《错引耶稣》：推荐基督教徒阅读」
回答四五味的「《错引耶稣》：推荐基督教徒阅读」（
http://www.douban.co
五味搬来这篇文章，我找到几个英语网页回答它。但是，若贴英文，四味和他的朋友看不懂，又以为是屎尿！所以我翻译一些重点；这几篇文章是：
第一篇：Daniel B. Wallace的「Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus《误引耶稣》书评」（https://bible.org/ar
第二篇：Peter J. Williams的「Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus": an analysis
分析《误引耶稣》」（http://www.bethinkin
第三篇：Greg Koukl的「"Misquoting" Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman『误引』耶稣？」（http://www.cbn.com/s
=======================================================
第一篇：Daniel B. Wallace的「Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus《误引耶稣》书评」（https://bible.org/ar
「Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)」
作者Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, 达拉斯神学院博士and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.现是达拉斯神学院教授。
His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Note: This is an abbreviated review. The full review is also posted on bible.org.这里是摘录，全文在https://bible.org/ar
Bart Ehrman is one of North America’s leading textual critics today. As a teacher and writer, he is logical, witty, provocative, and sometimes given to overstatement as well as arguments that are not sufficiently nuanced.
His most recent book, Misquoting Jesus, for the most part is simply New Testament textual criticism 101. There are seven chapters with an introduction and conclusion. Most of the book (chs. 1—4) is simply a lay introduction to the field. According to Ehrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticism (a discipline that has been around for nearly 300 years) for a lay audience.1
The book’s very title is a bit too provocative and misleading though: Almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings by Jesus! 他所讨论的言论，几乎没有一句是耶稣亲自讲的。The book simply doesn’t deliver what the title promises.
But it sells well但是卖得很好！: since its publication on November 1, 2005, it has been near the top of Amazon’s list of titles. And since Ehrman appeared on two of NPR’s programs (the Diane Rehm Show and “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross)—both within the space of one week—it has been in the top fifty sellers at Amazon.
For this brief review, just a few comments are in order.
There is nothing earth-shaking in the first four chapters of the book.前面四章，没有什么惊天动地之处， Rather, it is in the introduction that we see Ehrman’s motive, and the last three chapters reveal his agenda. In these places he is especially provocative and given to overstatement and non sequitur.
In the introduction, Ehrman speaks of his evangelical background (Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College), followed by his M.Div. and Ph.D. at Princeton Seminary. It was here that Ehrman began to reject some of his evangelical upbringing, especially as he wrestled with the details of the text of the New Testament.
The heart of the book is chapters 5, 6, and 7. 从五、六、七章，Here Ehrman especially discusses the results of the findings in his major work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford, 1993). His concluding chapter closes in on the point that he is driving at in these chapters: “It would be wrong… to say—as people sometimes do—that 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.”2他结论说：一般人认为新约手稿差异，没有影响神学思想，但这是错的。
Some of the chief examples of theological differences among the variants that Ehrman discusses are (1) a passage in which Jesus is said to be angry (Mark 1:41), (2) a text in which “even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come” (Matt 24:36), and (3) an explicit statement about the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8).3 他举的例有：马可1：41，马太24：36，约壹5：7-8
Concerning the first text, a few ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41 while most others speak of him as having compassion. But in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry—wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. So it is hardly a revolutionary conclusion to see Jesus as angry elsewhere in this Gospel.马可1：41说耶稣动慈心，马可3：5说耶稣生气（而这是希腊文手稿没有争论的字眼）。这没有什么了不起。耶稣可以在别处生气（另一处动慈心）。
Regarding Matt 24:36, although many witnesses record Jesus as speaking of his own prophetic ignorance (“But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father alone”), many others lack the words “nor the Son.” Whether “nor the Son” is authentic or not is disputed, but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32—“But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.” 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?4 One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one’s basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark.马太24：36 和马可13：32 都是说，耶稣不知道世界末日的时候，只是使用不同的字眼，并没有矛盾，也不是神学问题。
In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best.5 若说新约手稿改变了新约神学，那是夸张。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, 若非他对圣经文本的决定是错的话，or his interpretation is wrong.就是他的解释是错的。 These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. Yet, the conclusions that he put forth there are still stated here without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around. 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.
Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. 约壹5：7-8本身并不是讲三位一体。Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman’s book. 我们不知道为什么他在书中如此讨论，The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. 只希望惹起其他人的怀疑。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 is not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 affirmed explicitly the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Chalcedon’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they saw in 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 only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.
In sum, Ehrman’s latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. 总之，Ehrman的最新著绝对可称挑衅性。But it comes up short on genuine substance 可惜他缺乏真正的内容about his primary contention. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. 但是，学者有责任，不以自己不太懂的事情，叫读者吃惊。Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.6
===================================================
第二篇：Peter J. Williams的「Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus": an analysis
分析《误引耶稣》」（http://www.bethinkin
作者Peter Williams是is Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge; he was previously senior lecturer in New Testament at Aberdeen. 亚伯丁神学院新约演师。
We will first consider weaknesses in the specific historical model that Ehrman presents.
First weakness: 第一个弱点Ehrman’s work builds on a specific model of the history of the early church in which what was later recognised as orthodoxy was just one of many groups which, 作者认为是正统神学模范的，只是很多之一，viewed synchronically, cannot be said to be true representatives of Christianity. 难以代表基督教This model was particularly promoted by Walter Bauer, but investigation shows that on a number of counts ‘orthodoxy’ was closer to what was believed in the earliest stages of Christianity than the beliefs of other groups.
Second weakness第二个弱点: Ehrman constructs conflicts behind variant readings作者为抄本差别的，制造所谓矛盾and then posits this conflict as a historical absolute 又把这样的所谓矛盾安排为历史上的标准，by which he judges which readings are original. In days when it is held to be hard to know what an author thought it is even harder to know the motivation behind a variant. Ehrman is aware of this, but his response to it is inadequate. It is also possible that many of the variants which he says arose by deliberate act arose accidentally.
Third weakness第三个弱点: Ehrman is inconsistent in his use of criteria by which to judge an earlier reading. 作者使用的判断标准，不一致。
Fourth weakness第四个弱点: for Ehrman’s thesis to be plausible he needs a high proportion of the ensemble of readings that he prefers to be earlier and he needs to have grounds for reasonable certainty that this is so. 作者若想他的论点成立，他需要更多他能肯定的早期手稿。However, the ensemble of readings that he proposes as earlier has not been recognised by textual critics to be plausible as a whole.可是他筹合的，不是圣经文本评论家所承认的。
Beyond these weaknesses in the historical model that Ehrman presents, there are weaknesses in his argument in Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Jesus is a book that attempts to engage with a theological topic, one that has been important to Ehrman since his involvement in a group he describes as ‘fundamentalist’. However, in his attempt to disprove the divine verbal inspiration of Scripture, Ehrman does not engage with any of the most intelligent representatives of this position.
He therefore sometimes ends up attacking straw men. 结果，他在打稻草人。His analysis includes a number of conceptual confusions concerning the use of terms like ‘original’, ‘change’, ‘alter’, ‘Bible’, and ‘scripture’. In particular he alternates between material and immaterial definitions of textual entities without realising that he is doing so.
There is a further aspect of his work which we can analyse: namely, his populist rhetoric. It is of course legitimate for a scholar to use popular forms of speech. However, it is arguable that Ehrman uses rhetoric misleadingly.
=============================================
第三篇：Greg Koukl的「"Misquoting" Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman『误引』耶稣？」（http://www.cbn.com/s
作者Greg Koukl是Stand to Reason护教学组织的创办人。
……
……
Has the Bible been changed over 2,000 years of copying and recopying? Ehrman answers, “Yes, significantly.” Worse, the massive number of alterations make it virtually impossible to have any confidence of reconstructing the autographs.〔作者〕认为圣经在抄写又抄写时，有很多错误被引进。
Without the original renderings, there is no inspired text. Without inspired Scripture, there is no orthodox Christianity, only a jumble of spiritual ideas about Jesus expressed in a diverse body of conflicting texts that have tumbled down to us through the corridors of time. 〔作者〕认为没有圣经原稿，所以没有正统基督教，只有多样性的有矛盾的经文。
Is this skepticism justified? 怀疑者对吗？Simply put, no.老实说：不。 In spite of Ehrman’s credentials, 7 his who-knows-what-the-original-text-said view is not the majority opinion of textual scholars. This includes Bruce Metzger, Ehrman’s mentor, to whom he dedicated the book. The reasons for this confidence are based in the nature of the reconstructive task itself.
Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Recipe
……
……
This last point raises the key question of this entire discussion: Regardless of the raw number of variants, can we recover the original reading with confidence? 不管原手稿 差异多少，我们可以有信心知道原稿吗？The answer to that pivotal question depends on three factors. 那就视乎：First, how many copies exist? 第一，有多少手抄本？Second, how old are the manuscripts? 第二，它们有多老？Third, what is the exact nature of the differences (the variants)?差异到底有多少？
How Many and How Old?有多少和有多旧？
If the number of manuscripts available for comparison are few and the time gap between the original and the oldest copy is wide, then the autograph is harder to reconstruct. However, if there are many copies and the oldest ones are closer in time to the original, the scholar can be more certain she has pinpointed the exact wording of the initial text, for all practical purposes.9
To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular writings historians rely on for all their data from antiquity that have been restored with a high level of confidence based on available textual evidence.10世俗的历史学家的著作，我们基于现有文本证据，依靠古代所有的数据，已恢复对它们的信心。
Josephus’ first century document The Jewish War survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th century—four centuries after they were written.11 Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.12 例如约瑟夫的The Jewish War 只有九份手稿，最早是第五世纪的
Thucydides’History survives in eight copies. There are ten copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.13 Thucydides的History有八份手稿，Caesar的 Gallic Wars有十份……
Note that for most ancient documents only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-1,500 years or more. Yet scholars are confident they have reconstructed the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.
The Biblical Manuscript Evidence圣经手稿证据
The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison (see also, F.F. Bruce and McDowell). A recent count shows 5,500 separate Greek manuscripts.14 希腊文新约手稿有5000多份。These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).
Among the 2,795 minuscule fragments dating from the 9th to the 15th centuries are 34 complete New Testaments.15 其中有34 份是完整的。Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th century and earlier. Codex Vaticanus is likely the oldest, dated c. 325-350.16 The magnificent Codex Sinaiticus, dated c. 34017, contains half the Old Testament and virtually all of the New. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the mid-5th century.18
The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-third century.19 有手稿是第三世纪的。The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes most of the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.20有是主后200年的。
The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier), 21 有纸莎草手稿是主后117-138年的。showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40 years of its composition.
Keep in mind that most papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. Even so, the textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
Two other cross-checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions (translations) and citations by early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”
Early in the history of the Church, the Scriptures were translated into Latin (10,000 copies exist 22). By the 3rd and 4th centuries the New Testament had been translated and reproduced in Coptic and Syriac, and soon after in Armenian, and Georgian, among others. 23 These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the church grew. Translations help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.圣经也早被翻译为拉丁文，第三和第四世纪，被翻译为Coptic and Syriac文等等。
In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Indeed, the patristic quotations themselves include virtually every verse in the New Testament.24
I want you to notice something here. The chief concern Bart Ehrman raises regarding the biblical texts—the massive number of variants—can only arise with a massive number of manuscripts. Scholars universally consider this a virtue, not a vice—good news, not bad—because the condition causing the problem is the very condition providing the solution. The more manuscripts available for comparison, the more changes that will likely appear, but also the more raw material to use for comparison to fix the problem the variants pose.
This mountain of manuscripts gives us every reason to believe the originals have been preserved in the aggregate. No missing parts need be replaced. We have 110% of the text, not 90%.25 The real question is this: Do we know how to separate the wheat from the chaff to recover the original reading? That depends entirely on our last question: What is the nature of the variants themselves?
Those Pesky Variants那些恼人的差异
According to manuscript expert Daniel Wallace, “A textual variant is simply any difference from a standard text (e.g., a printed text, a particular manuscript, etc.) that involves spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution, or a total rewrite of the text. 26 Note that any difference, no matter how slight, is added to the total count.
What exactly are those differences? They can be divided into two categories: 手稿经文差异有两类：significant variants and insignificant ones.重要的和不重要的。 An insignificant variant has absolutely no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original text. The meaning remains the same, regardless of which reading is the original.
For example, well over half the variants (yes, more than 200,000) are spelling errors, 超过一半的差异是拼写错误，27 due either to accident (the ie/ei mistake is as common in Scripture as it is in our own writing), or different choices of phonetic spelling (kreinai vs. krinai). A host of others are immaterial differences in abbreviation or style (a definite article appearing before a name—“the James”—omitted in another because it adds nothing to the meaning). 28
Clearly, some insignificant variations are theologically important. 当然有不重要的差异有神学含义。The rendering in the KJV of 1 John 5 (the Comma Johanneum) appearing to echo the Trinity is about a significant doctrinal issue,例如约翰壹书5章似乎支持三位一体 but clearly this variant is not in the original so it creates no textual concern. It appears in only a four manuscripts, the earliest dating from the 10th century (four others have it penciled into the margin by a scribe), 29 and is almost universally acknowledged to be a corruption. Further, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on this text, but is verified by many other passages not in question.但是，三位一体神学理论不完全依赖这经文。
A similar problem occurs with thousands of other variants that appear in only one manuscript (“singular readings”). These obvious mistakes are easily corrected.
Here’s how Wallace 30 sums up the variations:有四类差异：
1. Spelling differences or nonsense readings (e.g., a skipped line)拼写错误
2. Inconsequential word order (“Christ Jesus” vs. “Jesus Christ”) and synonyms无关紧要的词序
3. Meaningful, though non-viable variants (e.g., the Comma Johanneum) 有意义的，但非生死优关的差异
4. Variants that are both meaningful and viable有意义的，而且是生死优关的差异
Wallace’s last category constitutes “much less than” 1% of all variations. 31最后一项，数量少於所有差异的百分之一。 In other words, more than 396,000 of the variants have no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original. Even with the textually viable differences that remain, the vast majority are so theologically insignificant they are “relatively boring.” 32 These facts Ehrman himself freely admits.
Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another.33
Wallace’s fourth category—those variants both meaningful and viable (in a textual sense)—is the only one of any consequence. “We are talking here,” write Kostenberger and Kruger, “about a situation where there are two (or more) possible readings, and the evidence for each reading…is relatively equal.”34
Here the analytical skills of the professional textual critic are applied to weed out the most unlikely variants. She has at her disposal a specific set of rules—the accepted canons of textual analysis—that enable her to resolve the vast majority of conflicts to recover the original with a high degree of confidence.
Ironically, this is precisely the point Ehrman unwittingly demonstrates as he closes out his case against the New Testament documents.
Ehrman’s “Top Ten”《误引耶稣》作者的『头10节经文』
On the final page of the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman lists the “Top Ten Verses That Were Not Originally in the New Testament.” It serves as his parting salvo, but in reality proves his entire thesis false.
First, I immediately recognized six of the ten citations, and in every case my own Bible translation (NASB) makes a marginal note that these verses are not in the earliest manuscripts. No surprises here.第一，这十项的六项，在英语圣经NASB都有注释，指出不在最早的手稿中。
Second, one third of Ehrman’s “Top Ten” list actually is in the New Testament, after all. Luke 22:20, 24:12, and 24:51b are, in fact, questionable in Luke. They do appear, however, almost word for word in uncontested passages (respectively, Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24; John 20:3-7; Acts 1:9, 11).第二，作者『头10节』的三份之一，例如在路加福音的，都在其他福音有同样的话，而且是无争议的。
Third, nothing of theological consequence is lost by striking any of the variants Ehrman lists, even the long ending in Mark (16:9-20) or the engaging but likely non-canonical account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).第三，作者的十项中，没有影响神学。
Finally (and most damaging), Ehrman’s list proves just the opposite of what he intends. 最后，作者的十项，刚刚反证了他的预期的意向。For all his hand wringing that the original text is lost forever, his list itself demonstrates it’s possible to recognize the most important spurious renderings and eliminate them.
Ehrman’s own works (Misquoting and also The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) prove that the text-critical methods mentioned above—the very methods he uses to critique the New Testament—are adequate to restore the original reading. It is proof that the massive number of variants do not interfere with our ability to recapture the original, but instead the rich manuscript evidence we possess allows us to weed out the vast percentage of variants. Otherwise Ehrman would not be able to say with confidence his “Top Ten”—or any other verses—are not in the New Testament.
This is a fact he acknowledges (again, ironically) in another work. Compare the pessimism of Misquoting Jesus with the optimism expressed in Metzger and Ehrman’s The Text of the New Testament: 35
Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. [emphasis added]
Bart Ehrman has two books with his name on them that give the exact opposite impression.36 And both were published the same year (2005).
What can we conclude from the evidence? 有什么结论？Virtually all of the 400,000 differences in the New Testament documents—spelling errors, inverted words, non-viable variants and the like—are completely inconsequential to the task of reconstructing the original. Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to a vigorous application of the accepted canons of textual criticism.
This means that our New Testament is over 99% pure.新约的手稿是99%可靠的。 In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), 37 and none affects any significant doctrine.
留言列表
