Lost In Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus

by Nicholas Perrin

Bart Ehrman, in his New York Times bestseller, Misquoting Jesus , claims that the New Testament cannot wholly be trusted. Cutting and probing with the tools of text criticism, Ehrman suggests that many of its episodes are nothing but legend, fabricated by those who copied or collated its pages in the intervening centuries. The result is confusion and doubt. Can we truly trust what the New Testament says? Now, Wheaton College scholar Nicholas Perrin takes on Ehrman and others who claim that the text of the New Testament has been corrupted beyond recognition. Perrin, in an approachable, compelling style, gives us a layman's guide to textual criticism so that readers can understand the subtleties of Ehrman's critiques, and provides firm evidence to suggest that the New Testament can, indeed, be trusted.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Religion, Reference, Christianity

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 8, 2008

About the author

Nicholas Perrin (PhD, Marquette University) is Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. His numerous books include Jesus the Temple, Thomas: The Other Gospel, and Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know about the Words of Jesus.

Reviews

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful guide to questions about the reliability of the gospels, written for average people. Those looking for a more scholarly work will likely be underwhelmed. The first part of the book addresses assumptions about Jesus, and the second part addresses responds to claims made by Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus," explaining what we can and can't know about Jesus' words.

Perrin intersperses a lot of his personal journey to Christianity, which I think is unnecessary, but some may find helpful.

The book's argument is summarized by this excerpt from near the end:

Jesus' words, precisely because they were revered as authoritative from the beginning, were seized on by the gospel authors and reduced into writing with the greatest care. Later copyists who transmitted these gospels in turn had such unsurpassable regard for the gospel writers that they took great pains to faithfully preserve these gospels and, within these gospels, Jesus' words. The words of Jesus that we have today in our modern-day English translations are equivalents and approximations, but they are indeed the words of Jesus. To be clear, this does not mean that our English texts are word-for-word identical with what Jesus actually said. … The gospel writers would often take the thrust of Jesus' words and put it in their own words. This is the nature of translation and storytelling. In years following, scribes would pass along these words, making mistakes along the way, yes, but also constantly correcting and constantly seeking to preserve the words of Jesus as best they could. Judging by the very high degree of agreement among our manuscripts, even if that transmission was less than completely perfect, it was faithful. Finally, modern translators have taken up the best reconstruction of the original Greek text and have sought to approximate the sense as best they can for the audience they seek to reach.

I read this because it was mentioned in Cold-Case Christianity.

Lost in Transmission
"There is no such thing as interpretation-free history. Balance is a fine idea, but purely objective history, something else entirely, is an illusion."

The gospel authors were concerned with both theology and historical accuracy; one doesn't preclude the other.

The Scriptures are fully human (written by humans) and fully divine (accurately transmitting God's words).

Did Jesus Live
No other religions have commonalities with Christianity, Christianity has a very different meaning, structure, storyline.

If Jesus didn't exist, how do we explain the many people who lived at the alleged time of Jesus and yet firmly believed He existed?

If Jesus didn't exist, anyone at the alleged time of Jesus could confirm that by asking around, yet thousands believed in Jesus. It would have to be a massive conspiracy.

History, Faith and Certitude
People who demand indisputable, absolute certainty about Christianity frequently act without indisputable certainty in other areas of life.

Can You Hear Me Now?
Post-temple Judaism was extremely conservative in passing on authoritative teaching; students were expected to write or memorize on the spot the teachings of their rabbis. This supports the idea that the disciples put a great effort into accurately transmitting Jesus' words.

Disciples weren't only Jesus' students, they were His authoritative spokespersons, and this added to their responsibility to accurately represent Him.

The early church recognized Jesus as Messiah, as a bridge between the old and new, and were highly motivated to get His words right.

The gospels don't consistently contain Jesus' ipsissima verba (very words; precise words) since he spoke Aramaic and gospels were written in Greek. We generally have Jesus' ipsissima vox (very voice; meaning); the writers represented what Jesus said with some stylistic freedom.

The Evangelist's Hand
The gospels record details differently the way artists would draw the same scene differently, emphasizing different aspects. There are differences (one gospel says "A," another says "B") but not contradictions (one gospel saying "A" and another saying "not A").

Mistaking Matters
Christians have always worked hard to minimize manuscript errors and establish the authoritative text, as seen from works like the Vulgate.

Even unprofessional early Christian scribes worked hard to avoid errors, given their religious commitment to preserving the written tradition.

"From the second century down to the invention of the printing press, the vast majority of those who transmitted biblical manuscripts believed that they were copying the very words of God."

Most manuscripts were created for use in a Christian community where they would be subject to review by those who knew and valued scripture, and would be quick to point out errors.

That some early church fathers cite scripture differently than early manuscripts is likely due to their paraphrasing and harmonizing rather than quoting.

No Christian doctrine is threatened by minor manuscript discrepancies.

"Jesus has been successfully passed along without being lost in transmission. This transmission is not perfect, but it is adequate."

Misleading Pens
4 canonical gospels were recognized as the only canonical gospels very early (Irenaeus, Muratorian canon, Justin Martyr, maybe Papias). Some of the earliest hard manuscript evidence demonstrates liturgical use of 4-gospel codex around the time of Irenaeus.

4 canonical Gospels were written in 1st century. Other "gospels" were written in mid to late 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Non-canonical gospels were also rejected because they differ theologically from canonical gospels.

The church didn't need a formal list of authoritative gospels until the Reformation because the church so widely accepted the 4 as the only canonical ones.

Translation Wars
Just as we can represent pi as 3.14 even though that's an approximation and it's possible to be more precise, so different Bible translations can be God's Word even though it's possible to go to the original languages to be more precise.

If a more readable yet less semantically precise translation is easier for a person to understand, in a sense it more accurately conveys God's Word than a less readable yet more semantically precise translation that's less understandable.

Conclusion: Break On Through to the Other Side
If you think nothing is true unless it's verifiable, empirically true, that nothing is certain unless it's absolutely certain, you risk living in complete skepticism.

"Our inability to get every last word in down with utmost certainty hardly invalidates [Jesus'] message. Jesus' voice is preserved in transmission."

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A CRITIQUE OF BART EHRMAN’S BOOK, “MISQUOTING JESUS”

Nicholas Perrin is Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. He wrote in the Foreword to this 2007 book, “While a handful of books on the market have sought to respond to Bart Ehrman by sparring with the particulars of his thesis on a scholarly yet popular level, this book is less about engaging Ehrman’s points directly… and more about engaging them indirectly… while I am interested in what Ehrman… believes about what we can know about the words of Jesus, I am just as interested in HOW he believes. Here, I am not so interested in arguing with him point by point… but in allowing him to make me think through my own position. What CAN we know about the words of Jesus?...

“If Bart Ehrman, having been confronted with an alleged problem in the gospel of Mark, decided to put away the evangelicalism of this youth for a purportedly more mature agnostic position, then my story… runs in the opposite direction… This book is for different kinds of people. It is for the countless people … [who] are AFRAID TO BELIEVE because they think that we cannot know anything about him or his words. It is also for Christians who are afraid to think because they believe we cannot known anything about Jesus… This book is about my journey on which I finally settled that question in my own mind.”

In the Introduction, he adds, “I have written this book for two categories of people. First of all… for the nonreligious person who has at least some passing interest in Jesus… I have also written this book for the church. A number of unsettling things are being said about Jesus… If the claims of Ehrman and others are really true, this will mean a major rethink for millions of devout believers. Buti if they are not true, how do we know they are not true? What is the basis for the claim that Jesus’ words have been lost in transmission? What is the basis for the claim that they have been preserved?” (Pg. xxii-xxiv)

He notes, “Since the biblical writers had theological goals, we are told, they cannot be trusted as reliable conveyors of the Jesus tradition. But there is… a fallacy at the heart of this thinking… the opposition between objective reportage and interpretation is a false one… playing the historian against the theologian is a move that just doesn’t work. There is no reason to reject the possibility that the gospel writers were attempting to wear two hats simultaneously and to wear them well.” (Pg. 11-12)

He states, “I suggest that at bottom the failure to grasp the Jewishness of Jesus and the failure of read the Gospels as historically reliable accounts of this same Jesus stem from a lack of imagination… it is a failure to imagine that the twentieth-century atrocities against the Jews were already being anticipated on a smaller scale in the first-century world of Jesus. The Jews of Jesus’ day were a people who were sorely oppressed by Roman rule… Such people wouldn’t have much time for, or interest in, moral philosophers who merely spoke in platitudes… Any first-century Jew knew all too well the stories of how countless Jews suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Gentiles. This is the world in which Jesus… came preaching the kingdom of God… I submit that this is the best platform on which to understand the historical Jesus.” (Pg. 78-79)

He asserts, “As Messiah, Jesus would have been interpreter par excellence of the Hebrew scriptures and the history of Israel. Jesus’ words (and deeds) were therefore the glue of Christian conviction. For the early church to have lost them in transmission would have spelled a complete undermining of what Jesus had been aiming for all along… Jesus’ followers had deep and abiding interest in getting the bridge down right. Therefore, as historians we are right to assume on general grounds that we have NOT lost Jesus’ words in transmission. The words of Jesus, as recorded in the canonical gospels, are to the best of our knowledge his words indeed… the scope and substance of Jesus’ words must be presumed to go back to Jesus himself.” (Pg. 93)

He acknowledges, “because [the disciples] wished to be faithful, they chose at times to re-represent Jesus’ words exactly as he spoke them; at other times, they chose to give the thrust of Jesus’ words in their own words… There are no credible historical reasons for believing that the disciples always and everywhere preserved Jesus’ PRECISE words; nor, on the other hand, is there evidence that they were prepared to spin sayings out of whole cloth.” (Pg. 94) Later, he adds, “the four evangelists are … more like portrait painters, artists who wish to render their subject faithfully and, in order to do so, paint in their own way… and for their own audience… each ‘gospel artist’ has his own very different angle.” (Pg. 101)

He admits, “There are times, I think, when as historians, we make our best effort to harmonize the data and make our best guess as to what really happened behind the text of the Gospels. There are other times, however, when perhaps we are best served by simply saying, ‘I pass.’ I do think that the four gospels pass muster as coherent history, but this is not the same thing as saying that we fully understand the particulars of all the events the Gospels purport to tell. Sometimes the better part of wisdom is knowing when to plead ignorance. Sometimes we need to give ourselves permission not to have all the answers.” (Pg. 111)

He suggests, “If Mark was among the first gospels to be written, then the later evangelists ascribed to his text some degree of authority. Presumably then when they wrote their gospels, they wrote with a view not of replacing Mark but of supplementing him. This means that Mark provided the context against which the other gospels sought to be understood… we DO have to understand them against one another. If this leads to creating a virtual kind of metagospel, a mental reconstruction of what actually happened in the life of Jesus, then so be it… but this should not overshadow the fact that the one gospel has been made known in four accounts.” (Pg. 126-127)

He says, “The gospel writers were not simply reworking one another’s material, nor were they merely giving their own slant on the history of Jesus. Rather, the evangelists saw themselves as being conduits of revelation, as having the unique task of laying out the story of Jesus in order that it might serve as an authoritative norm for the church community… We have no grounds for imagining that the gospel writers considered themselves to be mere scribes of a prior tradition… A second implication of the fact that the New Testament was handed down in a confessional context is that the copyists were not just copyists but also self-involved readers.” (Pg. 136-137)

He points out, “strangely, despite Ehrman’s insistence on utter corruption of our text, he dedicates considerable space in his book toward proving that the actual autograph actually said this or that---generally against the received reading. As far as logic of argumentation goes, this is one of the most disconcerting aspects of the book… Ehrman needs to know that you can’ have it both ways. Not only does Ehrman exaggerate the frequency of textual corruption in our received text, he is equally given to overstatement, even sensationalism, when it comes to deliberating on what is at stake.” (Pg. 143-144)

He summarizes, “The Jesus whom the first-century Christians met in the four gospels two thousand years ago is the very same Jesus we meet in our Bibles today. If there are minor discrepancies between the wordings of the gospel manuscripts, this does not invalidate Christian faith. On the contrary, it reminds us that perfect truth and perfect beauty, that which demands our worship, is not to be equated with the Bible, but with the one to whom the Bible witnesses. Over the centuries the church has received God incarnate through the sometimes faltering hands of the scribes, and Jesus has successfully been passed along without being lost in transmission. This transmission is not perfect, but it is adequate. Ehrman and the Enlightenment demand what is perfect, but the God of perfect gifts demands a response from what is adequate.” (Pg. 145)

This book will be of great interest to those studying textual criticism, as well as Christian Apologetics.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm torn between giving this book two stars or three. It was written as a rebuttal to Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" and gives a historical explanation and defense of the reliability of the Gospels and church teachings about them.

Although at times the author uses poor argumentation and a few logical fallacies, the overall arguments in the book are strong and work as good support for Christian faith in the New Testament. However, reading it isn't an extremely enjoyable experience because it is written in the form of one giant 200-page essay.

Here is a section of the book that I particularly liked:

"Ehrman's recounting of how the words of Jesus have been lost in transmission reminds me of another story. It's the familiar story of the hero who, through applying methods and reasoning, is able to unmask the prejudices and superstitions of parochial folk who have never properly taken the time to explore the matter properly and scientifically, or even to think for themselves. Once, however, such superstitions are debunked, once it is again demonstrated that there is no 'other side' to break through to, society will be free indeed. Free to do what we want to do. It's an old and tired Enlightenment script, underpinning countless other narratives, ranging from the French Revolution to just about every episode - for those old enough to remember the show - of Scooby Doo.

"But I have another script that draws its principles not from the Enlightenment but from a theological understanding of God's Word. This is not so much my script as the way in which the church has traditionally understood things. You might say it is a scriptural understanding of history. It goes like this: Jesus Christ came into the world as the embodiment of God. As God, his nature was unchangeable, for God does not change. But as man, he grew in wisdom and in stature (Luke 2:52). The revealed Son of God is both eternal and dynamic. As it is with Jesus Christ the Word of God, so it is with God's Word contained in Scripture. It is eternal and will never pass away (Mark 13:31), but there is a dynamic element as well. As we in the church continue to pass along God's Word, preserving it and interpreting it, we continue to grow in our understanding. We are not alone in this process. God sends his promised Holy Spirit to guide us. Down through the ages God superintends the transmission of his own Word and works amoung those in the church who have been authorized as Scripture's interpreters. Even as we have very good historical grounds for believing that we have Jesus' words preserved in transmission, there are also theological grounds as to why this might be: God was not sovereignly at work only in the Christ-event. Through the Spirit, God has also been active in the interpretive recording of that event and the transmission of that record down to this day."

[James Korsmo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do the words of Jesus that we see in our Bibles today resemble the words that were actually spoken two millenia ago? Or have the Bible's authors, copyists, and translators played fast and loose with them? Bart Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus, makes a case for the (often systematic) corruption of Jesus' words and of the whole text of the Bible from the earliest times on down to the present. For him, the Bible isn't trustworthy: Jesus words and those of the earliest apostles have been lost in transmission. It is into this discussion that Nicholas Perrin, professor of NT at Wheaton College, enters with this new book.



Let me start by saying that this book is decidedly not academic, by design. Perrin, a NT scholar, could certainly mount academic responses to Ehrman and others on these issues, and other authors have in fact done so. Perrin, on the other hand, seeks to both respond in a way that can be understood, but more than that he seeks to put forth a compelling vision of what our New Testament is and why it's worth paying attention to. This whole discussion is encased in a testimony of sorts, as Perrin talks about his own upbringing and his first exposures to the Bible. His journey of discovery makes a great storyline within which these issues can be explored.



I recommend this book quite highly. He makes a lot of current research in a number of areas, from Jesus studies to textual criticism, highly understandable. His chapters on Jesus and his Jewishness are worth the price of the book, and his summary of the quests for the "historical" Jesus is one of the clearest I've read. Beyond that, he also (selectively and rather quickly by design) refutes a number of Ehrman's central points, and, probably more important, points toward more fruitful lines of inquiry and more authentic approaches to questions of the Bible's integrity.



Perrin's work is full of insights, such as the important assertion that Jesus intended his words be remembered by his disciples, and that, in their Jewish context, it is highly plausible that they would have done so with care. He also makes clear that God chose to impart his revelation into a human context and process, deeming it a sufficient and appropriate vehicle for the intended message. We shouldn't necessarily expect a wooden, flawless, perfect textual tradition, and this fact doesn't lessen the power of God's revelation or diminish it's call on us. In the end, he concludes that "even if that transmission [of Jesus' words] was less than completely perfect, it was faithful" (187). This book has clearly done a service to the church in making some of these discussions accessable. If these are issues that interest you, this book is a great place to start.

[Orville Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keeping It Real: the Logic Behind Biblical Skepticism

Perrin takes a scholarly but personal approach to the historical factors in considering the reliability of the early documents of the Jewish movement that became known as Christianity in the Roman Empire. The currently-available 2009 edition is the paperback version of the 2007 hardback edition I own.

The author discusses the question of the transmission of the words of Jesus and the stories of the events that provide the context for those words. He thinks through some of the factors involved in the culture and technology of the time since the first writings. Perrin reflects on the oral nature of the culture of the time, how the original teachings would have been presented and learned then preserved by the oral community and shared with other communities. He helps us think through the possibilities, how the texts were preserved, copied, stored and honoured.

He examines the logic of some popular skeptics and the questionable logic he finds there. But this is not a theoretical discussion about an ideology of the Scriptures. The real-world focus here is admirable. This is a historical investigation that rediscovers some established but ignored clues.

Perrin does not present an academic, abstract and theoretical discussion. He focuses on the real-life situations of the Roman Empire and the cultures of the first century. He places the historical insights in their firm cultural settings and timeframes, attempting to refocus the rather free-flowing and vague innuendos of some current writings. A factor in his insights is his own intellectual and emotional struggles with the components of the Jesus story.

He looks back to his high school and college experiences, when he was considering the truths of life. He refers to the people and circumstances that facilitated his doubts, insights and growth on his journey of faith and life. These personal testimonials help us keep a real-world perspective as we evaluate the logic and perspective brought to the discussion of history by various writers or schools of thought.

This will be a rewarding read for most readers, and will provide some fresh insights by reminding us of some factors that are often overlooked in the modern dismissal of anything that is not new.

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why did I want to know about this books's "words of Jesus", at least words that are available elsewhere? I just happened to randomly find it in the Spokane Library and it looked promising. The book is not so much about individual words as such, but rather is an even-handed reply to Bart Ehrman'a best-selling MISQUOTING JESUS (2005), The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why which sees the New Testament as a hopeless mishmash of mangled translations and nearly thirty other "gospels" about Jesus. Elaine Pagels comes to some of the same conclusions in her GNOSTIC GOSPELS. All of this throws doubt on the accuracy of the New Testament.
I say "even-handed" because Perrin, an intelligent and conservative defender of just four gospels, admits that both of these views (four gospels vs. thirty) are conjectures. But he argues that his conjectures make a lot more sense than the views of Ehrman and Pagels. He says they buy into essentially a "conspiracy" theory of orthodox authorities clamping down on free-ranging views about what Christ said and meant. His notion is that there was always a broad consensus about Christ's essential teachings, and that the four gospels generally accepted are vaid because they're the earliest ones.
Does any of this even matter, or is it all academic and theological nitpicking? Perrin thinks it's important - a genuinely practicing Christian has to use his head to decide what he really believes, and he thinks it's too easy to get carried away by the theories of Ehrman, who in a way is headed in the same direction as the hugely entertaining, but ultimately intellectually frivolous Dan Brown and his DA VINCI CODE fantasies.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his attempt to refute New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, Nicholas Perrin agrees with Ehrman on various points, such as that Luke made changes in Mark's account. Perrin also concedes that each gospel writer had his own interpretation, though he deprecates the significance of minor differences and argues by analogy more than by using historical evidence. Perrin again agrees with Ehrman that the gospels should be understood separately, not melded together to achieve a desired meaning.

Perrin admits ignorance regarding some discrepancies between the gospels and doesn’t specifically try to explain the vast majority; if he could have, he probably would have. He contends there's "a remarkable continuity" in how Jesus is depicted. A difference is not necessarily a contradiction, and Perrin argues there are no real contradictions between the gospels.

Perrin dismisses differences as "variations." He explains the four versions of who went to Jesus' tomb by concocting a fifth theory. Perrin asserts that both Mark and Luke are accurate because Luke used eyewitnesses and did his own synthesis.

Perrin's tone is somewhat defensive, and he concedes more than he refutes. Perrin is persuasive addressing the massive changes from the original text. He is weaker, however, when it comes to the Biblical contradictions.

[Jonathan Aran · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book accessible to the general reader as well as informative as it deals with a subject that is grappling the christian world, namely on the reliability of the gospels. I liked how Perrin weaves his testimony with scholarly issues. And what's more it is easy to grasp. Bart Ehrman is a scholar and his writings will cause a stir but as readers will find in Perrin's book; there are ample evidence as well as balanced scholarly studies that will eventually come to the contention of any reader that our gospel are reliable. Perrin does not undermine the difficult issues and tensions popping up in the gospels, he acknowledge them and and gives explanation where explanations are needed. I find this helpful because the tendency to spiritualize as well as having a handle on every issue on the gospels and somewhat the things that puts down people. In the end we are left with the text and the person Jesus, we decide whether to follow him or not.

[Tylor Lovins · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is essentially Nicholas Perrin's rebuttal to Bart Ehrman's biblical criticism. I think his arguments (as well as Erhman's) miss the point of what it means to believe in the Christ. I wouldn't recommend this book: it is a waste of time. Perrin takes language on holiday, here, and his arguments are really ad hoc, I think. Although he and Eherman are wrong, they are wrong in uninteresting ways. Not even their mistakes have much to teach us. It would be better to simply ignore them altogether.

[Robert Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A more conversational rebuttal of Bart D. Ehrman ... though the footnotes have all the scholarly stuff you might want. Quick, easy good read. Give it to all your friends who give Dan Brown or Elaine Pagels the time of day.

[Heath · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book. Offers helpful insight into the various objections of Ehrman to our receipt of Scripture. I'm sure this book will prove to be a useful resource throughout the years. Perrin also weaves personal story into his project to illustrate his goals, which is very helpful.

[Dmcconkey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read - author response to Ehrman as he does in an autobiographical way as he traces his journey in coming to terms who Jesus really is and that his words are true.