Top 5 Best Biblical Hebrew Courses Online (Free & Premium)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

What is the best Hebrew course available online? People have become interested in the answer, especially since Old Testament stories about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the fall of humanity, Noah and the flood, and Moses parting the Red Sea are foundational narratives that are deeply woven into the cultural fabric of Western civilization. Additionally, they were originally written in Hebrew. 

These stories echo through our education systems, resonate in great works of art, and inspire everything from sacred music to blockbuster films. Indeed, ancient Hebrew is an evocative, poetic, and complex language that shaped some of the most influential texts in human history.

For centuries, Biblical Hebrew remained largely inaccessible to the general public. It was the domain of seminary students, philologists, theologians, and historians, studied in hushed university libraries and parsed in footnotes of academic journals. To learn it meant years of formal education and access to specialized programs. 

But with the rise of modern technology and the spread of online learning platforms, that landscape has dramatically changed. Today, anyone with curiosity, an internet connection, and a bit of discipline can begin learning Biblical Hebrew from the comfort of their home. 

Whether you're a pastor preparing sermons, a scholar-in-training, or simply a curious reader who wants to delve deeper into the Old Testament texts, there are now more tools than ever to help you succeed.

In this article, we’ll explore the top 5 Hebrew courses online, including both free and premium options. We’ll walk through the strengths and drawbacks of each, look at user reviews and course structure, and offer recommendations for different kinds of learners — from absolute beginners to academic researchers.

Conclusion

The revival of interest in Biblical Hebrew reflects a broader movement toward engaging ancient texts in their original linguistic and cultural contexts. 

Whether one's goal is to deepen theological understanding, enhance academic study, or simply connect more intimately with the Hebrew Bible, the tools and resources now available online have democratized access in unprecedented ways.

The courses featured in this article vary in structure, price, and pedagogical approach, but each offers a unique doorway into a language that has shaped millennia of religious thought and literary tradition.

Ultimately, the best Hebrew course is the one that aligns most closely with your learning style, academic goals, and available time. From the rigorous scholarly environment of the Hebrew University to the budget-friendly clarity of Jeff Benner’s Udemy lectures, there is truly something for everyone.

And if you're interested in how those very texts were transmitted, preserved, and altered across time, you may also want to explore Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s new online course, The Scribal Corruption of Scripture: How the Bible Was Changed and How Readers May Never Know.

In just four eye-opening lectures, Dr. Ehrman unpacks how the New Testament was copied and modified (sometimes unintentionally, other times quite deliberately) by scribes over the centuries. It’s a compelling next step for anyone invested in the history, language, and integrity of the biblical tradition.

Best Biblical Greek Courses Online (Free & Premium)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Learning biblical Greek — otherwise known as Koine Greek — can be a difficult but rewarding process that opens up a deeper understanding of ancient texts, including the New Testament and other early Christian writings. Whether you’re a complete beginner or looking to expand your language skills, there are numerous online courses, apps, and resources to help you on your journey. Which are the best Biblical Greek courses, and why should you choose them?

In this guide, we’ll explore the top Koine Greek courses available today, highlighting their features, pros, cons, and what makes them unique. Whether you’re on a budget or willing to invest in a more structured program, you’ll find a course that suits your needs and learning style.

Best Biblical Greek Courses

Top Overall Online Course for Learning Koine Greek:

Conclusion

When I started graduate school, I was excited to learn biblical Greek and Hebrew. I wondered whether being able to read the original languages of the Bible would help me to understand it better and to contextualize its words.

This indeed turned out to be the case, although not always in ways that I expected. Additionally, reading the original languages will certainly give any earnest student a gateway into the ancient worlds from which biblical writings emerged. Knowing the  language is crucial for understanding culture, and understanding culture is essential if we are to grasp how and why biblical writings came to be.

Whether you are just dabbling in these languages or plan to go on to an academic career, I highly recommend checking out the options on this list of best biblical Greek courses, making use of one or more of these resources.

10 Key Textual Variants in the New Testament

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The New Testament is the most influential body of literature in the history of Western civilization. It has shaped the course of theology, philosophy, politics, literature, and art for nearly two millennia. 

Since the invention of the printing press, it has remained the world’s undisputed bestseller. Yet, despite its cultural and historical significance, many readers today are surprisingly unfamiliar with the New Testament — its content but also the basic facts about how it came into existence. Some people also do not realize that it contains differences.

What caused these textual variants in the New Testament? One crucial but often overlooked aspect of its transmission process is that it, like all ancient books, was copied by hand. For the first fifteen hundred years of its history, every single manuscript of the New Testament was written by a scribe.

As you can imagine, where there is handwriting, there are mistakes. Over time, these hand-copied manuscripts began to diverge, sometimes in small and subtle ways, sometimes in ways that significantly altered the meaning of the text. 

In this article, we’ll explore what textual variants are, how they came into being, and why they matter. We’ll begin by looking at the nature of the New Testament itself. What kind of collection was it, and how was it copied and preserved? 

Then, we’ll examine the causes behind textual variants, from simple copying errors to deliberate editorial changes made for theological or practical reasons. Finally, we’ll explore 10 of the most significant textual variants in the New Testament.

By the end, you’ll not only have a clearer understanding of how the New Testament came down to us through the centuries but also why studying these textual differences is essential for anyone interested in the history, meaning, and ongoing interpretation of the Bible.

The New Testament: Basic Introduction

In their book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, Bart D. Ehrman and Hugo Mendez note:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) 

Most of my students have little knowledge about the formation of the New Testament, which is always surprising, especially considering that we live in a predominantly Catholic country.

Even the most basic point is frequently overlooked: The New Testament isn’t one single book. It’s a library of 27 distinct writings, composed by various authors over decades, in a range of literary genres, including Gospels and letters. 

These texts were composed in ancient Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean world during the first century C.E.

The earliest of these writings are the letters of the apostle Paul, with 1 Thessalonians often considered the first, written around 49 or 50 C.E. The latest is probably 2 Peter, which most scholars date to the early second century, well after the death of Peter himself.

This means that the New Testament, as we know it, emerged gradually over time, shaped by different theological, pastoral, and communal needs.

However, writing a text was only the beginning of its story. In the ancient world, every book — religious or otherwise — had to be copied by hand. The New Testament was no exception. For centuries, it was preserved and circulated by scribes who sat by lamplight, painstakingly reproducing each word onto scrolls or codices.

We don’t possess the original manuscripts (or “autographs”) of any New Testament books. What we have are later copies: Some made with great care, others with obvious errors and alterations.

A scribal culture had long existed in the ancient Near East, including in Israel, where writing was considered a prestigious and even sacred task. 

While oral performance retained its authority, the act of writing (especially prophetic or divine words) conveyed seriousness and permanence. As scholars have noted, writing enabled communities to fix content, control tradition, and resist the changes that oral transmission might introduce.

Furthermore, texts were written on various materials in antiquity, from stone and pottery shards to wooden tablets and leather. However, as Bruce Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman explain, “Among these several materials, the student of the New Testament is interested chiefly in the last two, for almost all New Testament manuscripts are made of either papyrus or parchment.”

Today, scholars have access to thousands of New Testament manuscripts in Greek, ranging from tiny scraps to complete codices. One of the oldest known fragments is Papyrus 52 (P52), a small piece containing verses from the Gospel of John, likely dated to the first half of the 2nd century.

The production and preservation of the New Testament, then, was an enormous and expensive undertaking. Books in antiquity were never cheap (there were no Kindle versions, of course), and every step in the copying process introduced the possibility of change.

Whether due to human error, poor eyesight, or intentional editing, differences crept into the text over time. Scholars refer to these differences as textual variants in the New Testament. And it’s this important phenomenon (how such variants emerge and why they matter) that we now turn to.

Textual Variants in the New Testament: An Introduction

When discussing textual variants in the New Testament, it's important to begin with the basics: What exactly is a textual variant, and why does it happen? Simply put, a textual variant is any difference found among the surviving manuscripts of the New Testament.

The existence of these variants is a direct consequence of the way texts were copied in the ancient world.

Copying manuscripts in antiquity was a remarkably different endeavor than it’s today. Without printing presses, computers, or even punctuation and spacing between words, scribes had to rely on their eyes, memory, and familiarity with the text to transcribe what they saw.

Often, ancient manuscripts presented words in an unbroken sequence (like THISWITHOUTSPACES), requiring scribes to parse and interpret the meaning as they copied. This made the work prone to error. Some scribes copied visually, others by listening and repeating what was read aloud. In both cases, human fallibility inevitably crept in.

These errors can be grouped into two broad categories: Unintentional and intentional changes. 

Unintentional errors include mistakes such as confusing letters that sound alike, skipping a line due to similar endings (a phenomenon known as homoioteleuton), repeating words or phrases, and occasionally inserting marginal notes into the main body of the text.

On the other hand, intentional changes were introduced when a scribe believed the text needed “correction.” Sometimes, this was due to doctrinal convictions or the scribe’s memory of an alternative reading he believed to be more accurate.

The sheer number of manuscripts and fragments we possess only adds to the complexity. As Leon Vaganay explains in his An Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism:

Likewise, Bart D. Ehrman, in his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, underscores the point: “Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in all their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands.”

Needless to say, the vast majority of textual variants in the Bible are minor and don’t affect the meaning of the text. However, some do, and it’s these theologically and literarily consequential changes that merit closer examination.

We aren’t, of course, going to survey every example of textual variation in the New Testament. That would require not just an article but an entire book — or perhaps a series of them!

Instead, in what follows, we’ll focus on some of the most noteworthy examples: Ten key textual variants in the New Testament that likely emerged from deliberate changes made by scribes who, for various theological or interpretive reasons, believed the text before them needed modification.

Ten Key Textual Variants in the New Testament

#1 – The Woman Caught in Adultery

We begin our exploration of the textual variants in the New Testament by looking at one of the most famous and beloved scenes in the Gospels: The story of the woman caught in adultery.

This poignant episode, in which Jesus tells a crowd of would-be executioners, “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone,” is absent from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John.

In his bestseller Misquoting Jesus, Bart D. Ehrman explains:

#2 – The Longer Ending of Mark (Mk 16:9-20)

I remember reading the Gospel of Mark for the first time and realizing its abrupt ending without any clear reference to Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. Being a Christian, it kind of bothered me. As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one. 

At some point in the early transmission of the text, a scribe added a longer ending (verses 9 to 20) detailing resurrection appearances, missionary commands, and signs of belief. 

However, most scholars today agree that the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear, and that the longer ending is a later addition designed to resolve the awkward silence after the original narrative.

As Ehrman explains in his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture:

#3 – The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)

Another example of a textual variant in the Bible (perhaps the most theologically loaded) is found in 1 John 5:7-8, a passage known as the Comma Johanneum. In later manuscripts, especially in the Latin Vulgate, the text includes an explicit Trinitarian formula: “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit — and these three are one.”

However, this phrasing is absent from all early Greek manuscripts and appears to have been added much later to support the doctrine of the Trinity during theological disputes. Most scholars agree that this phrase isn’t original to the text of 1 John but is instead a clear example of an intentional scribal alteration introduced to reinforce a particular doctrinal viewpoint.

In his Commentary, Raymond E. Brown concludes:

#4 – Jesus’ Agony in the Garden (Lk 22:43-44)

Textual variants are scattered throughout the Gospels, and another major example comes from Luke’s account of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. In some manuscripts, Jesus, while praying, is described as being in such agony that “his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground,” and an angel appears to strengthen him.

Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A. Plunkett argued that these verses aren’t original to Luke’s Gospel but were added by later scribes for theological reasons. In their view, the verses reflect a strong anti-docetic impulse — intended to emphasize Jesus’ real, physical suffering against those who claimed he only seemed human (a view held by groups such as the Marcionites).

These verses (Luke 22:43-44) are missing from our earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts and key early Church Fathers of the Alexandrian tradition, such as Clement and Origen. 

Yet, they appear already in the second century in authors like Justin and Irenaeus. So, were they added or removed? Ehrman and Plunkett believe they were added!

They emphasized how Luke, elsewhere in his Gospel, goes out of his way to present a calm, composed, and in-control Jesus during the Passion, omitting any signs of emotional anguish that appear in his source, the Gospel of Mark.

Furthermore, the bloody sweat passage stands out as inconsistent with Luke’s redactional choices (in comparison to Mark’s text), disrupting the literary structure of the scene and introducing an image of Jesus that seems more Markan than Lukan.

However, it must be noted that not all scholars agree with Ehrman’s and Plunkett’s conclusions. Some defend the authenticity of the verses by appealing to their presence in a broad range of later manuscripts and noting their Lukan stylistic features.

In the end, while the debate continues, many textual critics lean toward seeing this as an interpolation. It’s a vivid example of how textual variants in the New Testament can reflect deep theological tensions in early Christian communities.

#5 – Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them…”

Among the most memorable lines attributed to Jesus during the crucifixion is his prayer: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” 

Yet this deeply moving saying is absent from several of our earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, including Papyrus 75 (dated to around 200 C.E.) and several high-quality codices from the 4th century. 

At the same time, the passage appears in Codex Sinaiticus and a large number of later manuscripts, especially from the medieval period. This raises a classic textual question: Was the verse originally part of Luke’s Gospel and later removed, or was it a later addition inserted by a scribe?

Scholars remain divided. Some have argued that a scribe may have added the prayer to ensure Jesus appeared as forgiving as Stephen, the first Christian martyr, who prays in Acts 7:60, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” 

However, this theory is complicated by the fact that scribes typically harmonize passages by reproducing identical wording (not merely similar themes), and in this case, the wording differs significantly. 

Moreover, Luke, who authored both the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, often draws explicit parallels between Jesus and his followers. The idea that Stephen would echo Jesus, rather than the other way around, aligns more naturally with the literary structure and theological message of Luke-Acts.

If the verse was indeed original, why might it have been removed? Historical context offers one possible answer. 

As tensions between early Christians and Jews intensified, some scribes may have become uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus offering forgiveness to those perceived as his executioners — particularly if the blame was increasingly placed (see Christopher Edwards’ excellent book!) on the Jewish authorities.

In this scenario, the prayer might have been deliberately omitted to better reflect the theological and polemical climate of the time. Whether original or secondary, the passage remains one of the most discussed textual variants in the New Testament — another reason to love Biblical studies and early Christianity!

#6 – “Son of God” Omission (Mark 1:1)

The opening verse of the Gospel of Mark traditionally reads, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” However, some early manuscripts do not include the phrase “the Son of God,” leading scholars to question whether those words were part of the original text.

Many textual critics argue that the shorter reading, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ”, is more likely original. The reasoning is partly based on what is known as the principle of lectio brevior, the idea that scribes were more prone to adding clarifying or theologically rich material than removing it.

In this case, it's plausible that a scribe inserted “the Son of God” to reinforce Christological belief, especially as the title plays a key role later in the Gospel.

#7 – "By the Grace of God" or "Apart from God" (Hebrews 2:9)

In Hebrews 2:9, most modern translations read that Jesus tasted death “by the grace of God” (chariti theou) for everyone. However, a small number of early manuscripts instead read “apart from God” (chōris theou), suggesting a different theological nuance: That Jesus died forsaken or separated from God.

Most scholars consider “by the grace of God” to be the original reading, partly because it fits more smoothly within the theological tone of Hebrews, which consistently emphasizes divine initiative and mercy.

The alternative reading, “apart from God,” while attested in early sources such as the Church Father Origen, may have arisen through a copying error, especially given the similarity of the Greek words chariti (χάριτι) and chōris (χωρὶς).

#8 – “Nor the Son” Omission (Matthew 24:36)

In Matthew 24:36, Jesus speaks about the timing of the end of the age, saying: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” However, some manuscripts of Matthew omit the phrase “nor the Son” (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός).

In The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman explains the manuscript tradition:

Scholars generally believe that “nor the Son” was part of the original text and was later removed by some scribes. The rationale is that this phrase, which implies a limitation to Jesus’ knowledge, may have been viewed as theologically problematic by copyists who emphasized his divine omniscience.

This example illustrates how textual variants in the New Testament could also arise from scribal efforts to resolve perceived theological difficulties.

#9 – Expanded Ending (Romans 8:1)

Romans 8:1 is a classic example of a verse that appears in two different forms in the manuscript tradition. Some manuscripts read simply: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Others add a longer clause, adding two phrases: “who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

Most scholars believe the shorter reading is original and that the longer version represents a later scribal expansion. The additional phrase was likely inserted to clarify or reinforce the ethical behavior expected of believers, aligning with Paul’s broader teaching.

Thus, Robert Jewett, in his Commentary on Romans, explicitly concludes: “The witnesses without these two phrases are sufficiently broad and ancient to claim priority.”

#10 – The Number of the Beast: 666 or 616? (Revelation 13:18)

This is, for me, the most interesting example of textual variation in the Bible. I found out about it long before I ever became a historian. As a high-school kid, I was reading John Lloyd's and John Mitchinson's excellent work, The Book of General Ignorance.

The number of the beast, famously 666, might not be 666 in every manuscript. Some early sources record it as 616. Revelation 13:18 is where the infamous number appears. In most manuscripts, it reads: “Let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it’s the number of a man. His number is 666.”

Yet a handful of early and significant manuscripts (including Papyrus 115 and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) record the number as 616 instead. This discrepancy puzzled me at first, but later, as I delved into New Testament scholarship, I learned that this is one of the many genuine textual variants in the New Testament.

As Bart Ehrman explains in his book Armageddon, both numbers may be tied to the same figure (Emperor Nero) through a system called gematria, in which letters correspond to numerical values.

Depending on how “Nero Caesar” is spelled (particularly whether the Latin or Hebrew transliteration is used), the total can add up to either 666 or 616. So, which is it?

Most scholars agree that 666 is the original reading, supported by its broader manuscript attestation and symbolic resonance in apocalyptic literature. Still, the presence of 616 in early witnesses suggests that some scribes (or Christian communities) may have used an alternate spelling of Nero’s name that fit their linguistic or cultural context.

Conclusion

The presence of textual variants in the New Testament reminds us that the Bible is not a monolithic or static document handed down unchanged through the centuries. Instead, it reflects a long and complex history of transmission, shaped by the hands, minds, and sometimes even the theological agendas of countless scribes.

If you're interested in diving deeper into how scribes changed the Bible (intentionally or by accident), check out Bart D. Ehrman’s online course, The Scribal Corruption of Scripture. Through four engaging lectures, Bart unpacks many of the themes we've explored here, offering expert insights, historical context, and fascinating examples that bring this scribal history to life.

These variations and changes don’t necessarily undermine the historical value of the New Testament but instead invite us to engage with it more thoughtfully and historically, recognizing that our modern Bibles are the product of centuries of careful preservation but also inevitable human imperfection.

By examining ten key examples, we have seen how some textual variants are minor while others carry significant doctrinal, literary, or historical implications. Whether added intentionally or introduced by accident, each tells a story. And its story is one of the many reasons I fell in love with Biblical scholarship!

Textual Criticism: Definition, Resources, & Examples in the Bible

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

In the world of biblical studies and the study of ancient texts, textual criticism plays a crucial role in piecing together the past. This scholarly discipline is dedicated to determining the most accurate version of a text.

In this article, I’ll explain some of the core principles of textual criticism, explore various resources available for scholars, and present concrete examples of textual variants found within the Bible. By understanding the methods and challenges involved, we can get a clearer perspective on how textual critics uncover the closest possible representation of ancient writings and what that means for our understanding of historical texts.

What Is Textual Criticism?

Textual criticism is a vital part of the discipline of biblical studies as well as the study of ancient writings in general. When we don’t have an original, handwritten copy of an ancient writing (called an “autograph”), textual critics look at the various manuscripts of that writing, noting differences between them and trying to get at what the original probably said. As Bart Ehrman puts it, textual criticism “is the discipline that tries to establish what the original words were — or at least tries to decide which words to print if there are a variety of options.”

As is the case with many ancient documents, we don’t have a single autograph of any biblical text. What we have are manuscripts, which are copies of copies of copies, usually made years after the original was written and often differing in multiple ways. For a text such as the Bible, this presents a problem for those who believe it is inerrant: which version is free from error? For many, this question demonstrates that there is a lot at stake in the study of textual criticism.

Before the printing press was invented, people could only write and copy books by hand. This left a lot of room for copyist errors. In his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart Ehrman notes that

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. All scribes did this. So rather than actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e. the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.

For ancient writings such as those in the Bible for which we have no originals, textual critics examine the oldest manuscripts, noting differences — called “variants” —  in the writing. In his book A Rationale of Textual Criticism, G. Thomas Tanselle writes that the job of the textual critic is to examine all the variants of a given text and remove those that are probably not original. The resulting text is called a critical text, the textual critics’ best estimate of what the original said.

Examples of Variants in Biblical Texts

Broadly speaking, textual variants can be put into two categories: unintentional changes and intentional changes. Ehrman notes that unintentional changes could occur simply because the scribe was “sloppy, or inattentive, or distracted, or sleepy, or ignorant” while intentional changes more often happened because “the scribe thought something was wrong in the text and so changed it, or didn’t like what it said and changed it, or thought he had a better way of putting it and changed it.”

Unintentional Variants

In A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results, Paul Wegner notes a number of examples of unintentional biblical variants. One type often found is a misreading, and thus miscopying, of individual letters, accidentally making a word not intended by the original author. For example, in some Greek manuscripts written in all capital letters (these are called “majuscule” or “uncial”), the Greek word ΟC (“who”) is misinterpreted as ΘC (“God”). This can be seen in some manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16, which says either “Who was revealed in flesh” or “God was revealed in flesh.”

Wegner further explains two other types of unintentional scribal errors called fusion and fission. Fusion is when two words which should be separated are read together. Conversely, fission occurs when two words should be joined together into one but are mistakenly separated. Both of these errors happened a lot in ancient times because scribes and/or copyists didn’t separate words on the page in ancient manuscripts. Imagine, for example, reading this:

GODISNOWHERE

One copyist would undoubtedly read this as “God is now here,” while another might read it as “God is nowhere.” Scribes had to make decisions about how to correctly read and interpret words like this all the time.

In the New Testament, there are many examples of fusion. One can be found in Mark 10:40. Textual critics have decided, based on manuscript evidence, that the original likely said this:

“…but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to appoint, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

The Greek words meaning “but for whom” are all’ hois but some manuscripts write it as allhois, one word which would mean “for others.” In the first example, Jesus merely admits that he doesn’t decide who will sit at his right and left hands. In the second, he tells the disciples it will be others, not them, who sit at his side. You can imagine that while some of these changes make very little difference to the overall meaning of a phrase, others can make a big difference.

We find an example of fission in some manuscripts of Romans 7. In some variants, the Greek word oidamen (“we know”) is split into oida men (“On the one hand I know”). The difference in meaning here is not that significant, but it is a difference which forces textual critics to decide which version is original to the text.

Intentional Variants

Sometimes, scribes deliberately changed something in a biblical text because they thought the text was incorrect in some way. This could mean fixing grammar or spelling, changing details to make a story more cohesive, or even making theological alterations so the text would fit with dogma. Let’s look at some examples of this.

In older manuscripts of Matthew 1:7-8, the name “Asaph” appears as one of Jesus’ ancestors. However, in a few later manuscripts, scribes changed the name to “Asa,” which was the name of a king of Judah found in 1 Kings 15. While it may be that the scribe was trying to insert more royalty into Jesus’ genealogy, it may also be that he was unfamiliar with the Hebrew name “Asaph” and thought he was correcting the spelling. Or both, since it’s often difficult to discern the intentions behind scribal changes.

In other cases, scribes appear to have changed or added words to clarify what they believed was the intended meaning of the text. An example of this can be found in Mark 1:2-3. The oldest manuscripts of this passage attribute a Hebrew Bible quote to “Isaiah the prophet”. However, the quotation is actually a composite of quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Apparently realizing this, later scribes attribute the quote more generally to “the prophets” in their manuscripts.

Additionally, sometimes scribes attempted to harmonize texts, changing them so that they agreed with other texts. In John 19:20, for example, it says that the inscription over Jesus’ head on the cross was written “in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.” Luke’s Gospel doesn’t say anything about the languages in its oldest manuscripts, but some later copies add the phrase from John, with the languages in a different order, apparently to harmonize it with John’s Gospel account.

How Do Textual Critics Decide Which Variants Are the Originals?

In The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, textual critic Bruce Metzger, one of Bart Ehrman’s main teachers in the field, outlines some of the criteria textual critics use to make key decisions about which manuscript evidence is likely original. Ehrman himself recommends this book for anyone interested in the field, beginners included.

Among many other things, the book includes a primer on some of the basic things a textual critic has to know to do this work, including the following:

- How were books made in antiquity?
- How were they published or made available for reading?
- What are the surviving manuscripts of the text in question?
- Into what ancient languages was the New Testament translated?
- How was the New Testament quoted by early Christian writers, and how do these quotations help us know what the original New Testament said?
- How was the New Testament changed by scribes over the centuries?
- What verses are most disputed among scholars today? And what is probably the “right” answer about how those verses were originally worded?

All of this knowledge helps text critics come to decisions on what was likely in the autograph of a given biblical text. The process might go like this: Let’s say we’re text critics working on the third chapter of the Gospel of John. The first step is to gather as many ancient manuscripts as possible — sometimes called “witnesses” — of John 3. Having done this, we scrutinize them to find any differences between manuscripts.

One of the first things to look for when understanding variants is external evidence. First, older manuscripts are preferred for obvious reasons: the older it is, the closer it was to the time the original was written so it may have fewer scribal errors. In addition, critics look in the margins of these manuscripts. If the scribe added alternative readings of a phrase or passage there, it likely means that he used more than one manuscript source for his copy. Knowing this, we could then look to see which manuscripts agree with the main and marginal texts.

Then we have internal evidence. Kurt and Barbara Aland outline some of this in their book The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Two criteria they mention go by the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading).

Lectio brevior means scribes generally added words for clarification more often than they subtracted them. Therefore, the shorter reading is more likely to be original.

Lectio difficilior is the principle that scribes tended to try to harmonize texts to get rid of inconsistencies. This means the text that is unharmonized, meaning a bit more obscure and harder to understand in the context of the passage, is likely to be the original reading.

As you can imagine, there are many, many more criteria used by textual critics, so many, in fact, that it would be impossible to cover them all in this article. I’m sure you can see, though, that textual criticism requires meticulous attention to detail as well as an impressive amount of perseverance.

Conclusion

Textual criticism is the discipline in which scholars examine multiple manuscripts of biblical texts, attempting to reconstruct the original form of each one. This is important for the Bible since we don’t have a single original copy of texts from either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.

Manuscripts in ancient times were copied by hand, leaving them open to both intentional and unintentional errors. Sometimes, a scribe was just exhausted as he copied a text and thus made a mistake. Other times, the scribe attempted to help the text along, changing words or phrases to make them harmonize with other texts or with certain doctrines he found important.

The process by which textual critics decide which readings are the originals is difficult and painstaking. It involves looking at external evidence, such as the age of the manuscript and any scribal writing in the margins, and internal evidence, including the notion that shorter and more difficult readings are more likely to be original.

Despite the difficulties inherent in such an endeavor, Bart Ehrman notes that “there are good reasons for thinking that most of the time we can get back to a fair approximation of what ancient authors wrote.”

By the way, if you’re interested in learning more about textual criticism, check out Bart Ehrman’s online course  “The Scribal Corruption of Scripture.”

Hermeneutics Meaning: What is Biblical Hermeneutics In Simple Terms?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The word “hermeneutics” can sound intimidating, especially when examining its biblical applications. Before I knew what it meant, it sounded like a difficult procedure for which you’d need a vast and highly technical knowledge. However, I can tell you now that whether you know it or not, you’ve been engaging in hermeneutics your whole life.

In this article, I'll explore hermeneutics’ meaning, tracing its origins from Greek philosophy to its current function in Christian thought. Whether you're new to biblical hermeneutics or just looking for a clearer understanding of its principles, I’ll introduce it here.

Definition of Hermeneutics

In simple terms, hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Theodore George notes that hermeneutics plays an important part in many disciplines because it focuses on “the meaning of human intentions, beliefs, and actions.”

These disciplines include law, medicine, and the social sciences but have often focused primarily on theology and biblical studies.

One important concept in hermeneutics is known as the hermeneutic circle. It says that a person’s comprehension of any text as a whole is established by reference to its separate parts, and that one's comprehension of each separate part is, in turn, established by referring to the whole.

For example, some Christians have interpreted the Gospels as the parts of the Bible toward which the entire Hebrew Bible pointed. At the same time, the assumption that the whole Bible is about Jesus helps these same interpreters understand the Gospels in their own way.

The hermeneutics meaning also includes understanding the presuppositions one has about what they are interpreting. As such, hermeneutics has been a part of both philosophy and Christian thought for centuries. Let’s take a brief look at some of that history.

History and Biblical Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics’ definition is derived from the Greek word hermēneuō, meaning “translate or interpret.” The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) wrote a work called Peri Hermeneias or On Interpretation, which initiated the study of interpretation into philosophy.

In Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, Jean Grondin writes that hermeneutics was originally discussed in a sacred context to interpret divine messages. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) These messages, whether received through a text or through oracles, were often initially unclear. It was up to someone with a reliable and rational hermeneutic to interpret them correctly.

The Talmud, the principal text of rabbinic Judaism after the Hebrew Bible, contains hermeneutic principles for interpreting the Hebrew Bible. In  Judaic Logic: A Formal Analysis of Biblical, Talmudic and Rabbinic Logic,  Avi Sion notes that these included ordinary rules of logic but also more specific hermeneutical rules.

The Talmud’s hermeneutical rules began with the presupposition that the Hebrew Bible was without error, an assumption that Christians would carry over to the New Testament. Thus, if an apparent error was found, it simply meant that the text was interpreted incorrectly.

There were also more specific rules: one said that a passage from the Hebrew Bible could be deciphered by alluding to another passage in which the same word appears.

One of the first Christian authors to cover biblical hermeneutics extensively was Origen of Alexandria (c. 185- c. 253 CE), who wrote that Scripture has three distinct levels of meaning, which he called somatic, psychic, and pneumatic. The somatic or bodily meaning was literal, merely reading a narrative, for example, and understanding what happened. The psychic or soul meaning gleaned moral lessons from the same passage, while the pneumatic or spiritual level of meaning would interpret the same passage allegorically to derive the deepest spiritual meaning from it.

Much later, leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, such as Martin Luther, would formulate the doctrine of sola scriptura or “Scripture alone.” This doctrine said that the Bible was the only source of authority for Christian faith. Using this presupposition, still current in many Protestant denominations, Christian thinkers created various hermeneutical methods around the Bible.

One is encapsulated in the Latin phrase scriptura sui ipsius interpres or “Scripture interprets itself.” This presupposition meant that there was no room for individual interpretations of the Bible because Scripture was entirely self-contained. Biblical passages that were unclear could be clarified by referring to passages that were clearer. This assumption continues to guide many Protestant theologians today.

Examples of Hermeneutics in the Bible

Interestingly, while we are talking about the history of biblical interpretation, some of the biblical authors themselves engaged in biblical hermeneutics as well. For example, take a look at this passage from Galatians 4:22-28:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by an enslaved woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the enslaved woman, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother… Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac.

Paul interprets this story from Genesis such that each character is a symbol: Hagar’s son Ishmael represents those Paul believes are enslaved by the Jewish law, just as Hagar was Abraham’s slave, while Sarah’s son Isaac is born to Abraham’s free wife and represents those gentiles to whom Paul promises salvation without the law.

One of Paul’s presuppositions here is that biblical stories can be interpreted allegorically, not unlike what Origen would later outline, to provide messages for future interpreters.

Paul’s writings are the earliest in the New Testament, but the Gospels are another example of hermeneutics in the Bible. In general, they presuppose that Jesus is the predicted Messiah and then interpret the events of his life as fulfilling prophetic scriptural passages.

For example, in Matthew 2:13-15, we find the story of Jesus’ and his family fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of King Herod who is slaughtering infants in an effort to kill Jesus. To explain the significance of this, Matthew says it happened to fulfill the prophecy from Hosea 11:1, which he quotes as saying “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” This is interesting and makes clear a couple of Matthew’s presuppositions.

The first is that this brief phrase must refer to Jesus (and that many prophetic verses refer to him as well). However, when you read the verse from Hosea in context, this is what God says:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

From this, it’s clear that the passage is referring to the whole of Israel as God’s “son,” not one person, and to the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. However, this brings us to Matthew’s second presupposition, one he shares with those Jewish scholars who employed the Jewish method of interpretation known as midrash: any tiny excerpt of Scripture can be taken and interpreted without referring to its original context or meaning. By doing this, the phrase from Hosea can be interpreted to refer to the infant Jesus’ escape to Egypt.

A final example of a biblical reference to hermeneutics is found in 2 Peter 3:14-16:

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by [God] at peace, without spot or blemish, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

While the author (most scholars agree it wasn’t really the apostle Peter) isn’t engaging in hermeneutics in this passage per se, he does refer to others interpreting Paul’s writings. He states that, because Paul’s letters are sometimes hard to decipher, some people are interpreting them incorrectly.

The author’s presupposition is that Paul’s letters are good and worthy of reading, so that anyone interpreting them outside the bounds of the author’s view of Christian faith must be “ignorant and unstable.”

Hermeneutics vs. Exegesis

I want to make one more note here before going into the how-to section of this article. In biblical interpretation, you’ll often find the words hermeneutics and exegesis. What is exegesis in simple terms, and is it the same as or different from hermeneutics?

As I said at the beginning, hermeneutics is the field of study concerned with types or methods of interpretation. Exegesis, on the other hand, is the actual act of deriving meaning from a text by using those methods. So in order to do biblical exegesis, you first decide what hermeneutic you will use to interpret the text.

In the passage above from Galatians, I noted that Paul did an exegesis on the story of Abraham’s two sons from Genesis. Paul’s hermeneutic included the presupposition that Scripture, in his case the Hebrew Bible, was divinely ordained to give later readers messages about the future and that its stories could, therefore, be read allegorically. Using that hermeneutic, he did an exegesis of the passage.

How to Use Hermeneutic Principles

The first thing to remember when thinking through hermeneutics is that when we read the Bible, we are, consciously or not, using hermeneutics to interpret it. We all have presuppositions about the Bible taken from how we were raised, the church we attended. or the larger culture. So the first step is to discover what you believe about the Bible.

Is it the inspired Word of God (whatever that means to you)? Is it completely without error? Is it a set of interesting ancient texts that help us understand the history of ancient people? Is it a predictive tool that can give us answers that fit our modern context? Think about it and discover your own presuppositions. Then, make sure that these are the presuppositions you want to stick with.

For instance, I grew up in an evangelical Christian church. We believed very strongly in sola scriptura, that the Bible contained everything a Christian needed to live and understand life in a divinely-approved way. Over the years, I discovered that other denominations, while they certainly revered the Bible, also depended on other sources, including church tradition and even personal experience, for this information.

As a historian, I now believe the Bible’s narratives are not historical, except in the sense that they give us information about how some ancient people thought. That is my current presupposition and what, therefore, guides my interpretations. In fact, for historians, the Bible gives us information about ancient hermeneutics, among other things.

Having determined your presuppositions, choose a biblical passage, perhaps something not entirely familiar to you, and interpret it. Your presuppositions are the “lens” you use to interpret the passage. For example, if my presupposition is that the Bible is completely without error, how will I interpret two passages that seem to contradict each other (believe me, there are many)?

While you’re at it, read up on some of the hermeneutical methods that people, past and present, have used to interpret both the particular passage you’re looking at and the Bible in general. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel when so many before us have come up with interesting methods.

Conclusion

Hermeneutics’ meaning is the study of interpretation, in simple terms. It doesn’t have to be applied only to the Bible, but that is probably its most common context in the modern world. It began (and continues) as a philosophical discipline but also had some sacred applications. 

We know, for example, that rabbinic Jews used various hermeneutical methods called midrash to interpret the Hebrew Bible. These included the presupposition that the Bible was without error, as well as particular principles of interpretation.

Christian interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria built upon these and came up with their own hermeneutical ideas as well. In Origen’s case, he wrote that there were three valid senses of Scripture: the literal, the moral, and the spiritual. Christians used these notions of biblical interpretation for centuries.  

Early Protestants in the 16th century, however, presupposed that the Bible contained literally everything necessary for Christian life, which affected their hermeneutic. Using this presupposition as well as the notion that the Bible was infallible, they focused solely on their version of the correct interpretation of the Bible, reasoning that Scripture was the only way God spoke to Christians in their era. This made for a much more individualistic form of Christianity, in which individual readers interacted with the text and did not rely as much on clerical authority.

While it may sound like a technical science, anyone can “do” hermeneutics. In fact, we’ve all done it all our lives without realizing it by merely interpreting what we read. To engage in hermeneutics more consciously, though, simply become aware of your own assumptions about the Bible, then interpret a passage through the lens of those assumptions.

Exegesis: Simple Definition, Examples, and Mistakes to Avoid

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

In the vast field of textual analyses of the Bible, few concepts are as crucial and basic as exegesis. Exegesis is fundamentally about moving from a mere surface-level understanding to deeper, more nuanced insights.

In this article, I’ll give an exegesis definition and explain its history, and methodology, offering a glimpse into its evolution over the centuries. By understanding these elements, readers can gain a more profound appreciation of how biblical texts are analyzed and the importance of rigorous, thoughtful interpretation.

Exegesis Definition and Etymology

Exegesis (pronounced ek·suh·jee·sis) is a Greek word: ex means “from” or “out” and hegeisthai means “to lead or to guide.” This makes sense from a word origin perspective since exegesis is meant to take someone from ignorance about a text to knowledge through interpretation. A person who practices exegesis is called an exegete, and the adjective or descriptive word is exegetical (an exegetical book, for example).

Exegesis, then, simply means interpretation of any text, although people use it most often when referring to the Bible. The whole concept of exegesis assumes that the true meaning of a given text is not entirely obvious and thus needs deciphering. An example comes through an interpretation of this phrase from Psalm 18:29:

By you I can outrun a troop,
and by my God I can leap over a wall.

In the SBL Study Bible, Patrick D. Miller writes that these verses are meant to indicate that God responds appropriately to human action. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) That is, God helps people in the right way for their particular situations. However, in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, a monk named Poemen (c. 340–450 CE) interprets the passage differently:

The will of man is a brass wall between him and God and a stone of stumbling. When a man renounces it, he is also saying to himself, "By my God, I can leap over the wall."

For Poemen, the “wall” signifies a barrier separating human beings and God which people can overcome with God’s help. Note that the same seemingly simple phrase can be interpreted in completely different ways. This is exegesis. Having defined what exegesis is, let’s look a bit at its history.

A Broad History of Exegesis

The oldest written examples of exegesis we have are from clay tablets written in Mesopotamia between 700 and 100 BCE. These tablets, written in the ancient Near Eastern language of Akkadian, are commentaries on other texts including literary writings, medical treatises and magical texts. In The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries, Uri Gabbay notes that these early commentaries may have influenced rabbinic exegesis of the Hebrew Bible.

In addition, the writings of Greek philosopher Plato (c. 427 – 348 BCE) inspired a large number of commentaries in ancient and medieval times as later philosophers attempted to interpret and elucidate Plato’s conceptual frameworks. As with all exegesis, not all of these later interpreters agreed about the meaning of Plato’s writings.

In terms of biblical exegesis, our main focus in this article, everything starts with midrash, a Jewish method of scriptural exegesis used in the 1st century CE by the writers of both the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In The Study of Ancient Judaism, Vol. 1: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, Gary Porton defines midrash as "a type of literature, oral or written, which stands in direct relationship to a fixed, canonical text, considered to be the authoritative and revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, and in which this canonical text is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to."

We can see midrash at work, for example, in the letters of Paul. In Galatians 4:22-28, Paul says the following:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by an enslaved woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the enslaved woman, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother… Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac.

Here, Paul addresses the story from Genesis 16-18 of Hagar, a slave with whom Abraham fathers a child, and his wife Sarah who, despite her advanced age, is promised by God that she will bear a son. Paul, as a midrashist exegete, interprets this story such that each character is a symbol with Hagar’s son Ishmael representing those “enslaved” by the law, while Sarah’s son Isaac, is born free and thus represents those gentiles to whom Paul promises salvation apart from the law.

A similar method of exegesis is used in the book of Hebrews to interpret a passage from Psalm 95:7-11:

O that today you would listen to his voice!
Do not harden your hearts…
Therefore in my anger I swore,
“They shall not enter my rest.”

The author of Hebrews writes that if his Christian readers do not harden their hearts “today,” they will be saved and the day of the Messiah’s return will arrive soon.

Early Christian fathers would take this midrashic exegesis and expand on it. The 3rd-century scholar and theologian Origen of Alexandria, for instance, wrote that there were three different senses of biblical interpretation, each appropriate to different levels of understanding. The literal sense was the lowest level, merely reading the narratives and understanding what happened. The moral sense was higher than the literal, a figurative interpretation used to glean ethical lessons from the stories of the Bible. But the highest sense was the spiritual, in which the interpreter read the stories allegorically, often reading Christ and his significance into them, just as Paul had.

Later interpreters added a fourth sense of Scripture which they called the typological. This form of exegesis made connections between the events of Christ's life as told in the Gospels and the well-known stories of the Old Testament.

These categories of biblical exegesis would continue to expand and grow. Protestant German scholars in the 18th century, for instance, used what they called the historical-grammatical method, analyzing the grammatical style of a passage to find the author’s true intent.

There are, of course, many more types of biblical exegesis, far too many to mention, in fact. For that reason, I’ll limit myself to examining just a few modern exegetical techniques.

Biblical Exegesis Methods

Canonical Exegesis

This is one of many theological exegetical approaches to the Bible that looks at the meaning the overall Biblical canon, assumed to be in its divinely-intended final form, has for Christians. Proponents of this method believe that, while the texts themselves are significant, even their order has divine significance, all pointing ultimately to Christ regardless of if a given text explicitly mentions him.

The originator of this approach, Brevard Childs, said the authors of biblical texts had done their best to erase their own “footprints” in their writings, thus leaving behind nothing but God’s inspired word rather than their own human input.

Pre-Critical Exegesis

This approach opposes the modern historical-critical approach which tries — by understanding the time, place, and culture in which a document was written — to understand the true intentions of its author. Instead, pre-critical exegesis maintains that the biblical writings can be taken at face-value and that their divinely-inspired meanings can transcend any original authorial intentions.

In Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective, David Steinmetz argues for the validity of this type of theological exegesis, saying that pre-critical exegesis rests on “the refusal to bind the meaning of any pericope [biblical passage] to the intention, whether explicit of merely half-formed, of its human author.” The assumption is that God’s inspiration conveys the texts’ true meaning to all readers, far beyond what the original authors could have imagined.

Exegetical Preaching

Like the two methods above, this approach is a theological form of exegesis. Exegetical preaching involves a pastor or priest using one or more methods of exegesis on a passage of Scripture and then revealing that discovered theological meaning to their congregation. Most, if not all, preachers use exegetical preaching unless they somehow ignore Scripture altogether in their sermons.

Textual Exegesis

More commonly known as textual criticism, this historical method attempts to discover the history of a biblical passage or book by analyzing all extant manuscripts to find the most likely original version. It goes without saying that this type of exegesis, to ensure accuracy, has to occur in the original languages.

Bart Ehrman, a long-time textual critic, explains that this has to be done because “we don’t have the originals or copies of the originals but only copies of copies of copies of the originals.” It is the highly technical job of textual exegetes to discover what these original writings said and interpret them accordingly.

Having defined a few current exegetical forms, I’ll now turn to the differences between exegesis and a few other terms with which it is sometimes confused.

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. While exegesis presumes that there is a meaning — theological, historical, or otherwise — inherent in the text, eisegesis (Greek: eis means “into”) involves inserting one’s personal life or conclusions into the text, unsubstantiated by the text’s contents. 

For this reason, eisegesis is often viewed as a mistake by both theological and historical interpreters. From a theological standpoint, biblical exegetes warn that the meanings of Scripture have long been established and bringing in a new, highly-personalized meaning removes that vital authority. From a historical standpoint, eisegesis ignores the scholars who have spent more than a century learning about the context shaping the produced writings, thus omitting key elements.

This method also brings with it the possibility of something called narcigesis. This is a recently coined term, a combination of “narcissism” and “eisegesis.” One Christian website defines it as “the explanation of the Bible in a way that shows excessive interest in oneself and prioritizes one’s own ideas” or “makes it all about oneself.” I can see how this could be a theological concern, but I have to confess that I don’t fully understand the difference between this and plain old eisegesis.

Exegesis vs. Hermeneutics

When we talk about biblical interpretation, these two terms always come up. Since we’ve already discussed the meaning of exegesis, what are hermeneutics? Are the two terms equivalent?

Hermeneutics is the field of study concerned with types of interpretation. It doesn’t only apply to the Bible, but it is essential to biblical interpretation. While exegesis is the actual act of pulling meaning from the text, hermeneutics is the discussion and decision of which method or “lens” will bring the best interpretation.

When examining a Biblical passage I find difficult to understand, I first have to make a hermeneutical decision: What method will I use to interpret this? Paul, in his reading of the Abraham story in Genesis, chose an allegorical method of interpretation. That done, he used it as an exegete to interpret the story of Abraham as referring to Christ and Christians rather than merely as a literal story of a guy with two sons by two women.

Exegesis vs. Exposition

While exegesis is the interpretation of a text, exposition is the explanation one gives, orally or in writing, of their particular interpretation. In my explanation of exegetical preaching above, the exegesis happens while the preacher reads the biblical text. The preaching or writing, explaining the exegesis and its implications to others, is exposition.

Seven Mistakes to Avoid While Doing Exegesis

It should be obvious by this point that I am not a theologian but a historian of Christianity. As such, I acknowledge my bias for historical-critical readings of biblical texts. For this reason, the mistakes I think you should avoid will be based upon historical methods of exegesis. I’m taking these, by the way, from Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook by John Hayes and Carl Holladay. It’s an excellent primer for anyone interested in the topic.

When we interpret biblical writings, it’s important to remember that we were not the authors’ intended audience. We are therefore what Hayes and Holladay call “third-party readers,” trying to understand earlier conversations which had nothing to do with our time and place.

Any reading of the Bible in a modern language like English is a translation and, therefore, an interpretation. For English, I highly recommend the NRSV translation, made by teams of reputable scholars well-versed in the ancient biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

There is plenty of information out there about the ancient cultures in which these texts were written. Take advantage of free websites like Bible Odyssey and other resources to learn about them.

Read up on the history of the time periods in which biblical texts were written to understand better the authors’ contexts and assumptions.

Some books of the Bible had parts written in different historical eras. The first half of Isaiah, for example, was written in the 6th century BCE while chapters 40-66 were written in the 8th century BCE. These were very different eras and relied on different assumptions and historical situations.

Every manuscript we have of a biblical book is a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on. Fortunately, we have the work of textual critics to help us know what the originals (probably) said.

Even when we read the texts, we’re so accustomed to reading through the lenses of our traditions that we often don’t see what’s really there. I grew up reading the Bible but didn’t realize until grad school that there are two completely different creation stories in Genesis. This is a common experience. Try instead to look at what is really present in the text.

Conclusion

The Bible is a highly complex set of ancient writings. Interpreting it requires several things, no matter your motivation. Exegesis is the act of deriving meaning from biblical texts. Whether you’re looking into the historical context of each writing or merely wanting spiritual inspiration, an exegetical method is a must.

While exegesis has been around almost as long as writing, the forerunner to biblical exegesis was Jewish midrash, a form of spiritually interpreting the Hebrew Bible used by rabbinic Jews and the New Testament authors. Later Christian thinkers would learn from and expand upon it.

Early Christian exegete Origen of Alexandria denoted several senses of interpretation for the Bible. These included the literal, in which the reader merely understood the biblical story as a narrative, the moral, in which ethical lessons were derived from each story, and the spiritual, in which the narrative could be seen as indicating the presence of Christ in history through allegorical interpretation.

Modern exegesis includes historical methods like textual criticism, examining multiple manuscripts of biblical writings to determine what the original might have said. It also concerns theological methods such as the canonical method, which assumes the fixed canon of Scripture was divinely ordained and thus contains all necessary meaning, and pre-critical exegesis, in which readers derive meaning from the text without reference to any perceived intention of the original author.

While discussing exegesis vs. eisegesis, most exegetes agree that eisegesis, the introduction of meaning into the text rather than taking meaning from the textual elements themselves, is ill-advised. Any exegete who reads the Bible carefully, however, will be richly rewarded with an endlessly complex set of ideas and information.

Systematic Theology: HISTORY AND DEFINITION

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

What is systematic theology? It’s a modern branch of Christian theology based on certain presuppositions about the Bible. As we investigate its history and key figures, I’ll explore where this type of theology began, how it has evolved, and who some of its most influential proponents are.

In addition, I’ll explain the differences between systematic theology and biblical scholarship, two disciplines which are sometimes mistaken for each other.

What is Systematic Theology?

Systematic theology is a type of Christian theology based entirely on reading biblical texts with certain assumptions. It is an attempt to make a consistent interpretation of the principles of Christian faith while using the Bible as the only source. It is almost entirely a product of a specific form of Protestantism, although there is a Catholic version I’ll discuss later.

When biblical scholars study the Bible, they look for its historical value, interpreting each writing in light of what they know about the culture and languages from which it emerged, the sociopolitical situation in which it was written, and a host of other historical factors. When systematic theologians write about the Bible, on the other hand, they are looking for advice on how to live today and what to believe.

Many forms of Protestantism, and particularly Evangelical Protestantism, take Martin Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura, or “Scripture alone” very seriously. This is the principle that the canonical Bible is the only basis of divine revelation. As such, it is considered the God-inspired, inerrant, and absolutely consistent source of faith and practice. I’ll say more about this doctrine later on.

Wayne Grudem is one of systematic theology’s key figures and thinkers. In his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grudem gives the following simplified definition: (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, “What does the Bible teach us today?” about any given topic.

This definition indicates that systematic theology involves collecting and understanding all the relevant passages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings clearly so that we [Christians] know what to believe about each topic.

By this definition, systematic theology is a form of biblical theology, basing its beliefs entirely on a collection of various biblical quotations on any given theme and interpreting them as entirely coherent. James Garrett adds to this definition in Systematic Theology : Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, saying that systematic theology also can incorporate historical theology, the study of the history of Christian doctrine. As we’ll see, some systematic theologians disagree with this, rejecting historical data altogether.

The website of The Grace Institute for Biblical Leadership adds that there are sub-categories within systematic theology, topics which it addresses according to its method, including the following:

Theology Proper – The study of the character of God.
Bibliology – The study of the Bible.
Christology – The study of Christ.
Pneumatology – The study of the Holy Spirit.
Soteriology – The study of salvation.
Anthropology – The study of the nature of humanity.
Angelology – The study of angels.
Ecclesiology – The study of the church.
Eschatology – The study of the end times.

Before discussing key figures in systematic theology, I want to discuss what biblical scholars say about the two key assumptions of systematic theology: biblical inerrancy, and biblical univocality.

What Are Biblical Inerrancy and Univocality?

In Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Norman Geisler and William Roach define inerrancy as the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching." The abovementioned Wayne Grudem adds that inerrancy says "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." In other words, biblical inerrantists, including systematic theologians, believe that every teaching in the Bible is theologically and morally correct and that every historical event occurred as described. There are many problems with this approach.

Scholars have known for many years that the events described in the Bible are not entirely historical. For instance, they almost universally say that a large-scale Israelite exodus from Egypt never happened. In Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, Ronald Hendel notes not only there is no archeological evidence for a large Israelite presence in Egypt but also that the ruins of early Israelite settlements hold absolutely no evidence of Egyptian influence.

In addition, in Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Charles Talbert notes that the description of Paul’s ideas and activities in the book of Acts differs markedly from Paul’s own descriptions of his ideas and activities in his letters.

These are just two of the many, many instances in which biblical scholars have proved that the Bible is not historically accurate. However, the other assumption, Biblical univocality, on which systematic theology is based, is even more difficult to defend.

In The Rise And Fall Of The Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book, Timothy Beal writes that “it is important to remember that the Bible is not a single book… but rather a collection of books – or, more accurately, a collection of writings, since none of them were originally published as books.” For this reason, Beal suggests that rather than a book, the Bible should be called a library, a collection of different texts by many different authors in different times with different perspectives. If this is the case, asking what the Bible says about a topic is like asking “What does the library say about this topic?” Obviously, it says many different things.

If one reads the Bible without the assumption that it is univocal, that is, speaking with one voice and perspective, it becomes clear that it contains many voices, many of which contradict each other. As an example, in Matthew 5:39, Jesus tells people not to respond violently to violence: “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And yet in Revelation 19, Jesus is shown wearing a bloody robe and wielding a sword to “strike down the nations.” How can Jesus be both violent and non-violent?

Additionally, in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart Ehrman points out that not only do we not have a single original manuscript of any biblical text (remember that Grudem refers to “the original manuscripts” as inerrant) but that among the manuscripts we do have, “There are more variations among [them] than there are words in the New Testament.” If this is so, how are we to know for certain which version of any biblical text is the original, and thus divinely inspired, version?

Having established the scholarly view of the two foundational assumptions of systematic theology, I’ll now look into its history and some of its key thinkers.

Systematic Theology 101

As a historian of early Christianity, I was never required to take any courses in systematic theology. However, if a person in seminary did take such a course, the following is what might be included on the syllabus.

Although they never used the term systematic theology, certain early Christian authors did try to formulate coherent Christian doctrines. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, used numerous biblical texts in his book The Protrepticus to argue that Greek religion was a natural early phase of human development, while Christianity was the culmination of a mature understanding of the universe. Clement’s student Origen of Alexandria used biblical texts similarly in his book On First Principles, to argue for a deeper, spiritual interpretation of those texts.

With the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, systematic theology, although not yet called by that name, was the method of Philipp Melanchthon's Loci Communes, a book which created a thematic, methodical explanation of Christian theology. Another example of this in early Protestant history was John’s Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin’s influence on systematic theology remains important today.

However, systematic theology as we now know it was actually developed much more in the 19th and 20th centuries. Here I’ll examine a few of those key figures and their contributions to systematic theology.

Charles Hodge (December 27, 1797- June 19, 1878)

Hodge was a Presbyterian theologian and the head of the Princeton Theological Seminary from 1851-1878. He was also a highly prolific author, writing many works on theology and the Bible. His greatest work was Systematic Theology consisting of three volumes and 2,260 pages. In this massive work, Hodge used his considerable knowledge of biblical passages to attempt to formulate a consistent Christian doctrine.

It is important to note that Hodge, like most other writers on systematic theology, was a committed Calvinist in his theology which, of course, affected how he interpreted the biblical texts. The Calvinist church is called the Reformed Church, which is why systematic theology is often called Reformed systematic theology. If you’re not familiar with the basic doctrines of John Calvin, one of the earliest Protestant thinkers, they are usually summed up in these five points (with a helpful acronym: TULIP).

Hodge, and most Protestant systematic theologians, fully believed all these points and used biblical texts to prove they were correct.

Louis Berkhof (October 13, 1873- May 1, 1957)

Berkhof was a Dutch-American theologian in the Reformed Church, also known as the Calvinists. His writings on Reformed systematic theology were influential in seminaries all over the world in the 20th century. Born in the Netherlands, he moved with his family to Michigan as a child and spent the rest of his life in the United States.

He taught for 40 years at the Calvin Theological Seminary, eventually becoming its president. He wrote 22 books, among which is his Systematic Theology, written in 1932. While this work largely followed the standard model of Calvinism, its thoroughness and use of biblical proof texts were incredibly influential in Calvinist and Evangelical circles. While it is an attempt to provide a coherent and rational theology, Berkhof also wrote that “Ratiocination [that is, reasoning] is a relatively superficial and unreal path to the deity.”

John Frame (born April 8, 1939)

In the 21st century, few systematic theologians are as influential as John Frame. He is an American Christian philosopher and Calvinist theologian who has written extensively on epistemology (the study of what constitutes knowledge), systematic theology, and ethics.

Frame has been openly critical of any attempts to look to Christian history as a means to develop theology. In Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, he uses biblical proof texts, again presupposing that the Bible is univocal, to explain how, in his opinion, the Bible explains God’s entire plan for humans from Adam to the end of time. While this is not a new idea, Frame also has a background in Western philosophy, so his contribution includes addressing philosophical objections to this view of the Bible.

Stephen Wellum (no dates available)

Wellum has long been a professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. While technically not a member of the Reformed or Calvinist church, his views are as openly Calvinist as the others in this list. His 1,000-page Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, while not an easy read, is admirably thorough, both in scope and detail.

Wellum’s theology, like those above, sticks generally to Calvinist lines or TULIP. However, in addition to his book on Reformed systematic theology, Wellum has written books in which he reaffirms some ancient doctrines of Christianity, while still fusing them with modern Calvinist principles. This use of historical information makes him unique among systematic theologians.

Francis A. Sullivan (May 21, 1922- October 23, 2019)

While by and large, systematic theology is a Calvinist, Protestant endeavor, there have been attempts by modern Catholics to systematize their theology as well. In The Church We Believe In: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, Francis Sullivan, a Jesuit priest and theologian, wrote about how Catholic theology relies not only on the Bible but also on the traditions passed down by the Catholic Church.

This, of course, gives Sullivan more sources to work with. Instead of having to interpret biblical passages alone, he included papal decrees and the rulings of Church Councils as well.

Conclusion

What is systematic theology? Classically, it begins with the doctrine of sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation. Systematic theologians choose topics and then search out biblical texts which tell them what to believe, according to Wayne Grudem.

This type of systematization relies on two assumptions: first, it assumes that the Bible is inerrant, having no errors of any kind, factually, doctrinally, or otherwise; second, it assumes that the Bible is univocal, with every biblical writing agreeing with every other biblical writing. Biblical scholars, meanwhile, have long known that neither of these two assumptions is defensible.

Nevertheless, most systematic theologians continue to use their method of biblical interpretation, almost always through the lens of the principles of John Calvin, an early Protestant reformer. Calvin had controversial views even among other Christians. Among these was predestination, the doctrine that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be damned, making human choice all but superfluous.

Prominent Calvinist theologians still propagate this version of theology, rejecting the insights of biblical scholars and interpreting biblical texts not to understand their origins but to determine what modern Christians should believe and how they should live.

Satan's Guide to the Bible: Summary and Critical Review

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Movies can influence our society profoundly, shaping opinions and sparking discussions on a myriad of topics. This influence is particularly noticeable in films tackling religious subjects, as evidenced by the widespread reactions to movies like The Passion of the Christ and The Da Vinci Code. Such films can stir emotions, provoke thought, and sometimes even incite controversy.

Recently, a very popular film called Satan’s Guide to the Bible was released on YouTube. It’s an animated film made by Zeke Piestrup, in which the main character, Satan, reveals lesser-known Bible “secrets” to a class of Sunday school children.  Playing the role of Satan is Tim Johnson, an animator and director who has made popular movies such as Antz and Over the Hedge.  Piestrup is a documentary filmmaker and TV host with an interest in biblical studies.

This review of Satan’s Guide to the Bible will adopt a scholarly lens, dissecting the film’s Old and New Testament claims from a historical perspective to assess their accuracy and the implications they hold. However, it will also include personal observations, offering a dual perspective that blends academic analysis with the reflective insights of a viewer.

What is Satan’s Guide to the Bible About? Introducing the Plot and Characters

Satan’s Guide to the Bible is a humorous take on what biblical scholars know about the Bible. It points out that pastors learn this same knowledge in seminary but usually don’t pass it on to their congregations. The plot has Satan substituting for a Sunday School class and teaching the kids about scholarly biblical insights.

Early on in the film, Satan also points out that in the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan, literally “the satan”, was not the Devil but merely “ the adversary”, a kind of prosecutor in God’s court (see the book of Job, for example).

The film also includes non-animated interviews with well-respected biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), John J. Collins (Yale Divinity School), Ronald Hendel (University of California, Berkeley), Susan Niditch (Amherst College), and the late Hector Avalos (Iowa State University), who passed away not long after the film was made and to whom it is dedicated.

At regular intervals, a campy version of Jesus breaks into the story, arguing against Satan’s information. In actual fact, the “Jesus” in the film represents specifically Evangelical Christian views of the Bible, views with which the filmmaker clearly disagrees.

While the Satan character is depicted as knowledgeable and clever, aligned with the biblical scholars represented in the film, Jesus is portrayed as ridiculous, making irrational and even shocking arguments in order to maintain the biblical inerrancy which is a cornerstone of Evangelical theology (more on that below).

The Inspiration for Satan’s Guide to the Bible

In an email, director Zeke Piestrup acknowledged that he’s long been a fan of the work of Bart Ehrman. As an avid reader of Bart’s books (and those of other biblical scholars), he learned that while the conclusions of biblical scholars were taught in most seminaries, pastors rarely, if ever, passed on this information to their congregants.

Piestrup says that he wanted to explore this disconnect. As he says, the willful “ignoring of biblical scholars is why most of the 'standard stuff' taught in Christian seminaries and Catholic divinity schools has remained unknown for so long!” At the heart of this movie, then, is an audacious endeavor to unveil the layers of Biblical scholarship that typically remain confined to seminary halls and academic circles.

At the beginning of the film, several interviews with scholars suggest the reason for the disconnect. John J. Collins, for instance, states his opinion that pastors should tell the truth about biblical scholarship to the people in their churches and says they’re “falling down on the job.” Bart Ehrman notes that there is a practical reason for this: Many of those truths contradict the assertions of the Christian faith. If pastors told the truth they might lose members or be fired.

This is surely why Piestrup has Satan teaching a Sunday school class. What better setting could there be to provide scholarly knowledge about the Bible than the one place it is never discussed? He seems to agree with Collins that conveying this knowledge to the church should be part of a pastor’s duty.

In correspondence from Piestrup, the director says he believes the 'standard stuff,' widely acknowledged and taught within Christian seminaries and Catholic divinity schools, has remained obscured from public knowledge for far too long. Through Satan's Guide to the Bible, Piestrup and Johnson aim to bridge this gap, bringing these scholarly discussions to a wider audience.

Furthermore, Piestrup highlighted another significant motive behind the film: To communicate the idea that morality and goodness are not contingent upon adherence to any particular book, including the Bible. This notion challenges traditional belief systems and invites viewers to reflect on the essence of being good based on humanistic principles and the Golden Rule.

In essence, Satan’s Guide to the Bible isn’t just a film; it's a bold statement, a conduit for bringing long-held academic discussions into the public eye, and a platform for questioning and re-evaluating the foundations of traditional (conservative) Biblical interpretations.

The first half of the film focuses on the Hebrew Bible, and is further organized by themes, the first of which is “History.” Let’s dive in!

The Bible’s Accuracy on Historical Events

The Hebrew Bible contains an enormous number of narratives, most of which build on each other. For example, the creation story in Genesis builds up to the stories of the patriarchs which build to the story of the Exodus. Ergo, if even one of these stories is discredited as history, it might discredit all of them, or at least those that immediately follow.

The section of the film on Bible history begins, therefore, with what will surely be a shocking revelation to many: a large-scale Israelite exodus from Egypt never happened. Ronald Hendel notes that not only is there no archeological evidence for a large Israelite presence in Egypt, but in early Israelite settlements, there is absolutely no evidence of Egyptian influence.

We can confirm that this is indeed the scholarly consensus. Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, for instance, writes that there is a complete lack of archeological proof of Israelites ever living in Egypt. Additionally, he says the Sinai Peninsula has no material evidence that the Israelites occupied it for the entire 2nd millennium BCE.

This puts a major kink in the Hebrew Bible’s story. The Exodus is a defining event for the Jewish people and also for Christians. Perhaps this is why at this point in the film, Jesus interrupts Satan to argue for the concept of biblical inerrancy.

Again, Piestrup throughout this film argues specifically against Evangelical Christian beliefs about the Bible. Biblical inerrancy, the notion that everything in the Bible including the historical narratives is absolutely without error, is a major foundation of Evangelical theology. The film points out that this doctrine was detailed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a document formulated in 1978 at an Evangelical conference on the subject.

Part of the problem highlighted by the film, then, is that by sticking to this rigid definition of biblical inerrancy, Evangelicals are often forced to defend the morally and rationally indefensible. Case in point: the next part of the film talks about the story of God promising the land of Canaan to Abraham, ignoring the fact that indigenous people were already living there!

Evangelical biblical scholars are then shown bending over backwards to justify the divinely sanctioned mass murder of Canaanite men, women, and children that ensues. The scholars’ position is that the Canaanites were so wicked – engaging in incest, adultery, and child sacrifice – that they deserved to be killed. We’ll see this argument developed further in the section of the film on morals.

However, at this point in the film, another shocking truth about Israelite identity is revealed. If, as archeologists have proved, Israelites did not occupy or leave Egypt in order to conquer Canaan, where were they originally from? The surprising answer is that they were Canaanites themselves.

Ronald Hendel notes first that “Hebrew is a Canaanite language.” Indeed, linguists have confirmed this. Allen Ross writes that Hebrew is a subset of the Canaanite group of languages which are part of the Northwest Semitic language family. If this is the case, why would anyone have written the fictitious story of the Exodus followed by the violent conquest of Canaan?

John J. Collins answers in the film that “the peoples of the ancient Near East engaged in what might be called competitive historiography.” In other words, all Near Eastern civilizations wrote similar stories in order to prove that their heroes and/or gods were superior to those of neighboring societies.

The biblical authors, then, were simply conforming to what their time, place, and culture dictated. It was a common strategy of identity formation which all Near Eastern peoples employed. As Hendel says, “The story makes the people into the people.”

Hendel also notes that El, one of the names for God in the Hebrew Bible, was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. In fact, he points out that the name “Isra-el” incorporates the name El and means something like “El rules.” All of this leaves little doubt that the Israelites were a Canaanite people.

In addition, it seems that among Canaanites, the Israelites were historical latecomers. Hendel says that they only emerged as a distinct people in about 1200 BCE, much later than other Canaanite peoples. Amos Funkenstein suggests that Israel’s assertion that it was the chosen people may simply have been a compensation for its lateness on the historical scene.

Lest the children in the film Sunday school class think that all biblical scholars are simply militant, debunking atheists, Satan quotes several scholars who say that most biblical scholars identify as Christian. In fact, Hendel notes that biblical scholarship as a discipline was created by 19th-century Christians who were simply trying to delve deeper into the truths of the Bible in order to strengthen their own faith.

This section of Satan’s Guide to the Bible ends with Evangelical scholar Kevin Vanhoozer asserting that the absolute truth of the Bible will emerge “when right-minded readers read rightly.” In other words, only by starting from the premise of absolute biblical inerrancy can one read and understand the Bible correctly. Unfortunately, as the film points out, this forces readers either to ignore huge amounts of data or to make unwieldy and morally questionable arguments to maintain that stance.

This leads us into the section of the film on morality in the Hebrew Bible.

The Bible as the Source of Morality

Anyone who has read the Hebrew Bible knows its stories often contain what most of us would view as ethically inexcusable deeds, often explicitly sanctioned by God. How should a Christian and/or a scholar handle this? This is the implicit question of the morals section of Piestrup’s film.

We start off with scholar Amy Frykholm pointing out the disturbing ending of Psalm 137, a Psalm of lament for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians:

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!

One would hope that the thought of smashing children against rocks is abhorrent to most. Frykholm notes that for this reason, many Christians simply repress or ignore that passage and others like it, unable to cope with its implications about God.

However, she argues that by engaging with those disturbing parts of the Bible, “we can have a more empathetic experience,” understanding, for example, the fear and anger of an exiled people which might result in such a diatribe.

Of course, that line in Psalm 137 is in complete accord with the book of Joshua in which God commands the Israelites to kill every Canaanite man, woman, and child they encounter. The point seems to be that since the Israelites are God’s people, the welfare of any other people is unimportant. Hector Avalos sums it up succinctly: “There is a lot of genocide in the Bible.”

The fact that these violent episodes, based as they were on a non-existent exodus from Egypt, never actually happened, doesn’t make them less morally troubling. In Deuteronomy 7:2, for example, God says this to the Israelites who are about to enter Canaan:

and when the Lord your God gives [the Canaanites] over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.

How do biblical inerrantists justify this? How could the God described as loving in other passages command such a thing?

Satan shows us some disturbing examples of rationalization among Evangelical scholars. Clay Jones, for example, says that because God knew the Canaanite children would grow up to sin like their parents, he was right to kill them. That is, God engages in preventive justice by murdering children.

In an even more extreme example, John Piper is heard to say, “It’s right for God to slaughter women and children any time he pleases.” This is a “might makes right” theology: since God is the strongest, he can do whatever he wants.

Finally, we see William Lane Craig saying that he believes that children automatically go to heaven so killing the Canaanite children was actually an act of mercy: “They were the recipients of an infinite good.”

For most of us, religious or not, these attitudes are detestable. And yet, as the film points out, if you start from a premise of absolute biblical inerrancy, you need to twist and turn your values to justify what is clearly unjustifiable.

For this reason, Hector Avalos says that in a moral sense, it doesn’t matter that these slaughters didn’t actually happen. The very idea of killing people to take their land or killing them because they are members of a different religion is repugnant.

At this point in the film, Satan introduces the idea of the Golden Rule. Although many think that Jesus invented this notion in Matthew 7:12, John J. Collins notes that it is actually present in some form in most religions, including those that came long before Christianity existed. If we use the Golden Rule as a guiding principle, says Satan, no Bible or guidebook is necessary.

Jesus jumps in at this point to argue that without the Bible, there are no morals, a common Evangelical position. He contends that the Bible is itself the measure of morality, an interesting idea given the violence against children in the passages we just saw.

Of course, there are plenty of other morally disturbing events in the Bible, making the Bible-as-moral-guide notion questionable. Collins notes, for example, that there is ample evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites practiced human sacrifice.

For example, 2 Chronicles 28 says that King Ahaz, a descendant of David, sacrificed his own sons. King Manasseh is said to sacrifice his own son in 2 Kings 21. Furthermore, in Judges 11 we see the disturbing story of Jephthah, an Israelite warrior about to go into battle.

As Susan Niditch notes in the video, victory in battle in the Hebrew Bible was integrally related to offerings made to God. Before entering the fray, therefore, Jephthah vows that if God grants him victory, he will sacrifice to God whatever or whoever comes out of the door of his house first when he returns home.

After his victory, he comes home and his daughter, his only child, comes out to greet him. While Jephthah is certainly not happy about this, he eventually fulfills his vow, burning her as a sacrifice to God.

All of this highlights what director Zeke Piestrup says is one of his main intended messages of the film.  “I don't think any ancient scriptures should be relevant in discussions on modern values,” said Piestrup.  Certainly, the Hebrew Bible episodes above make a strong argument for this.

The Old Testament vs New Testament God

Transitioning from the vivid and often controversial narratives of the Old Testament, such as the slaughter of the Canaanites, the film presents a moment of reflection among its young audience. The children, absorbing the discussions thus far, offer a common perception: “The Old Testament is filled with stories of a harsh and punishing God, whereas the New Testament reveals a God of love and kindness.”

This observation paves the way for a critical intervention by Hector Avalos to whose memory this movie is dedicated. Avalos suggests: “The Old Testament God may wish to kill you but it was only for your lifetime for the most part. If read literally, Jesus proposes torturing those he dislikes with an eternal fire. Thus, the violence is infinitely greater in both quantity and quality in the New Testament.”

Having navigated the intricate balance between entertainment and educational content in Satan's Guide to the Bible, let's now delve deeper into the scholarly realm. In the forthcoming section, we’ll scrutinize four specific claims made about the New Testament in the second part of the movie.

New Testament and Satan’s Guide to the Bible: Four Surprising Claims Made in the Movie

As the narrative shifts toward the New Testament, this sets the stage for several different claims made in the movie that are well-known among Biblical scholars - claims that may surprise lay people because they usually don’t hear about them from their pastors and priests. Let’s take a look at some of those assertions. 

#1 Paul Did Not Write All the New Testament Epistles Ascribed to Him

The discussion around the authorship of Paul's epistles, as highlighted in the movie through Bart D. Ehrman's insights, underscores a pivotal scholarly consensus: of the 13 letters attributed to Paul, only 7 are widely acknowledged by critical scholars as genuinely penned by him.

This conclusion, drawn from analyses of writing style, thematic content, and other textual clues, aligns with what is widely taught in academic circles - even among professors of faith. While some conservative voices argue that pseudepigraphy, or writing under another's name, was morally acceptable and commonplace in antiquity, rigorous studies by scholars like Wolfgang Speyer and Bart D. Ehrman have shown that to be wrong. 

#2 The New Testament Was Probably Not Written By Eyewitnesses

Next, the plot shifts to the figure of Jesus who declares that some of the NT authors were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. He calls them “the perfect journalists”. This assertion is then critically examined in the movie by Bart D. Ehrman who takes, as examples, the Gospel of John and the epistles attributed to the apostle Peter. 

Ehrman points out the improbability that these individuals, described in Acts 4:13 as uneducated, possessed the requisite literacy and scholarly education to author such sophisticated texts. This perspective aligns with the broader consensus among contemporary critical scholars, who argue that the New Testament documents were not penned by direct eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. 

Again, we have to agree with the consensus. The New Testament Gospels, for instance, were written by anonymous Christians living outside of Palestine. There isn’t anything in the Gospels that would make us believe they were written by the people who personally knew Jesus and followed him during his public ministry. 

This scholarly stance often clashes with more traditional views held within various religious communities. A striking personal anecdote underscores this divide: In a recent discussion with a young Catholic theologian whose master’s thesis was on the Shroud of Turin, we were surprised to hear him repeatedly assume the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of John.

Despite his advanced theological education, which covered modern scholarly consensus on the origin of the Gospels, he appeared to adhere to traditional assertions of eyewitness testimony. This anecdote again highlights the profound impact and value of Satan’s Guide to the Bible. To put it more bluntly, people really need to know what the Biblical scholars are saying! 

The movie further delves into the defensive stance taken by certain conservative circles, portraying critical scholarship as an attack by "earthly agents of dark spiritual forces" on the Bible. This narrative, echoed by evangelical figures like John MacArthur and Rick Warren, frames any scholarly critique of traditional biblical interpretations as a direct assault on Christianity itself.

Such a dichotomy not only stifles rational discourse and critical inquiry into biblical texts but also starkly divides the community into those purportedly ‘for' Jesus and Christianity and those 'against' it. The film's exploration of these reactions underscores the urgent need for open dialogue with respect for rational arguments (on both sides of the debate). 

#3 Jesus Was Wrong About the End

The final revelations that Satan shares with the children - following discussions on the Bible's errant history, its morally questionable narratives, and the contested claims of authorship and eyewitnesses - pertain to the life of Jesus. 

This segment represents the movie's climax, where the children are introduced to what critical scholars and historians have discerned about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here, Satan aims to demonstrate that Jesus was "wrong about something," challenging the infallible image of Jesus with a critical examination of his actions and teachings.

The movie then presents Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, a perspective echoed by interviewed scholars Dale C. Allison Jr. and Bart D. Ehrman. They highlight instances where the historical Jesus informed his disciples that the end of the world was imminent and that the Kingdom of God would soon be established on Earth (e.g. Mk 9:1; Mt 10:23). 

Allison underscores the apparent non-fulfillment of these predictions, pointing out that the Kingdom didn’t arrive as Jesus had described, nor was the Son of Man seen coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). This narrative situates Jesus within a broader tradition of apocalyptic thought prevalent during his time. It was shared by figures like John the Baptist before Jesus and the Apostle Paul afterward, both of whom also anticipated an imminent end that didn’t materialize.

This interpretation, while broadly accepted among critical scholars, often poses a significant challenge to traditional belief systems. N.T. Wright, for instance, acknowledges the difficulty in reconciling Jesus' anticipated end of the world with historical reality, suggesting: “If Jesus expected the end of the world, then he was mistaken.”

To counter this, more conservative scholars such as Wright opt to reinterpret the concept of the Kingdom of Heaven, potentially distorting the original apocalyptic context anticipated by Jesus and his contemporaries, which envisioned a dramatic, tangible intervention by God and the establishment of a new world order shortly.

However, the film's treatment of Jesus' burial stirred some reservations. Satan's critique, emphasizing Paul's omission of the empty tomb, leans towards suggesting that Jesus was not buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb—a point that, in our view, oversimplifies a complex scholarly debate. 

#4 Jesus’ Burial is Rejected by Most Scholars

While it's accurate that Paul mentions Jesus' burial without referencing an empty tomb, the inference drawn in the movie might mislead viewers by implying a consensus on this matter among contemporary scholars. 

Unlike the issues related to the authorship of the New Testament Gospels or the apocalyptic framework of Jesus’ public ministry, the scholarly community remains divided here, with figures like Bart D. Ehrman doubting Jesus' burial story, whereas Dale C. Allison Jr. affirms its historicity.

This instance exemplifies a moment in the movie where a more nuanced presentation could have provided a clearer view of the debate surrounding the historical authenticity of Jesus’ burial. 

Satan’s Guide to Bible: Reactions and Reviews

The movie has ignited a spectrum of reactions that, frankly, isn't all that surprising given its contentious subject matter. It’s enough to note it has been viewed more than 1 million times on YouTube since it first came online three months ago.

On one side of the divide, the film has been embraced with open arms by those advocating for a fresh examination of the Bible and Christianity within contemporary American society. Websites like “Top Documentary Films” have praised the movie for presenting a new perspective, urging viewers to venture beyond conventional interpretations and explore the deeper intricacies of the text.

Similarly, the Freedom for the Religious Foundation has lauded Piestrup's work for its innovative approach to discussing the dense topic of Bible scholarship in an engaging and accessible manner.

Conversely, the film has stirred significant uproar within more conservative circles. While acknowledging that the movie's claims are recognized in Biblical scholarship, critics argue that there is a greater need for believers to familiarize themselves with Christian apologetics. By understanding the counter arguments provided by apologetic scholars, they assert that believers can address these provocative claims without compromising their faith.

Clarke Morladge critiqued the film for its satirical edge and for quoting revered Christian scholars out of context, thus presenting a skewed narrative. Another famous critic, Catholic apologist Trent Horn, offered his rebuttal in a film response.

Regarding the possible New Testament forgeries in the name of Paul, he suggested that the use of secretaries or disciples writing in tribute to Paul could account for stylistic differences, thus not undermining the letters' authenticity or the faith itself. To back up his claim, Horn quoted Tertullian who noted that some believers have written letters in the name of Paul out of love and respect.

However, Horn’s interpretation of Tertullian appears to be a misrepresentation of the early Christian author’s views, a point that, while intriguing, falls outside the scope of this review. For a more in-depth discussion on the topic, Bart Ehrman's study "Forgery and Counterforgery" offers a compelling exploration.

In a nutshell, the movie has sparked a plethora of reactions and controversies, clearly demarcating the line between those who view it as a necessary provocation and those who perceive it as an affront to their beliefs.

Personal Observations: A Short Review

Watching Satan’s Guide to the Bible was, in a word, enjoyable. The movie navigates its narrative with an engaging flow that captivates from beginning to end. What particularly stood out for me were the subtle injections of humor throughout the film, humor that resonates well with 21st-century sensibilities.

Hearing contemporary jokes from characters like Jesus and Satan added a refreshing layer to the viewing experience, making the film not only informative but genuinely entertaining. From the standpoint of someone simply looking for a good movie, this one hits the mark and comes highly recommended.

However, it's worth noting that reactions to the film can vary widely, especially among different religious communities. For instance, many of my (Marko) Catholic friends expressed dissatisfaction, primarily due to the plot's arrangement and the claims presented within.

This divergence in opinion often stems from conflating a movie's artistic merit with its commentary on sensitive topics like the Bible and Christianity. It's important to distinguish between evaluating a film's cinematic qualities — its plot, character development, soundtrack, and so on — and critiquing the validity of its thematic assertions.

Appreciating a film for its storytelling doesn’t preclude one from critically engaging with its underlying messages, and vice versa. Regardless of the quality of the historical claims it made, many still consider The Da Vince Code to be an excellent movie.

It’s not the case that the Satan’s Guide to the Bible film is filled with historical errors - far from it! The point we are trying to make is that one should be able to enjoy a good movie without always worrying about the specific claims related to history, Christianity, and the Bible.

From a scholarly viewpoint, the film strikes a commendable balance between Satan's enlightening dialogues with the children and insightful excerpts from interviews with various Biblical scholars. This interplay is further enriched by clips from evangelical conventions and lectures, offering a window into conservative approaches to the Bible.

Yet, the portrayal of Jesus as a staunch Bible-belt conservative does narrow the film's perspective, especially for viewers like myself (Marko), who were raised in Catholic traditions. This depiction, presumably aimed at resonating with the American evangelical audience, might not translate as well to viewers from other parts of the world, where religious landscapes differ markedly.

This narrowness of perspective is also reflected in the film’s failure to acknowledge other, non-literal forms of biblical interpretation, such as allegory, that have been present within Christianity for centuries.

Origen of Alexandria, for example, wrote in the 3rd century that some things in the Bible cannot be interpreted literally: "Who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?"

While the rigid Evangelical notion of biblical inerrancy highlighted in the film is indeed untenable, we should at least acknowledge that it is not the only form of scriptural interpretation Christians have used.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Satan’s Guide to the Bible is not only a cinematic journey through the complex tapestry of Biblical narratives but also a platform for stimulating deep reflections on the historical underpinnings of the Bible. Through its engaging narrative flow, humorous tones, and scholarly insights, the film succeeds in making critical Biblical scholarship accessible and intriguing to a broader audience.

So, whether you’re a skeptic, believer, or just curious about the conversations surrounding the Bible and Christianity, you should give it a chance! It’s a journey that promises to enlighten, challenge, and maybe even entertain. Let’s watch, question, and discuss together!

Redaction Criticism: Exploring the Theological Edits of Gospel Authors

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

For those interested in biblical interpretation, understanding redaction criticism is a must. But what is redaction criticism?

In this article, we’ll learn how redaction criticism works.

Redaction criticism is a little tricky to understand on its own, though. So we’ll start with the two forms of criticism it emerged from: source criticism and form criticism. I’ll then look specifically at how redaction criticism has been used by scholars to study the Gospels.

What are Source Criticism and Form Criticism?

When scholars started studying the Bible critically in the 19th  and 20th centuries, they used several methods. Source criticism tried to establish the sources for biblical texts. A subset of source criticism was called form criticism. Form criticism studies the Bible by breaking texts down into brief units known as pericopes. They then categorize these pericopes by genre. These can include poetry, prose, hymns, letters, and a whole host of others.

Having distinguished these different genres within a text, form critics use the pericopes to theorize about the origins of each distinct pericope, including the date, authorship, and historical context. In this way, they hope to trace a text’s composition back to its original sources.

As an example, Paul’s letters contain material that can likely be traced back to a pre-Pauline Christianity. In Philippians 2:6-11, for example, Paul tells his readers they should have the same mind as Christ,

who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
assuming human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a human,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Therefore God exalted him even more highly
and gave him the name
that is above every other name,
so that at the name given to Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Gregory Fewster, like most scholars, believes that these verses come not from Paul himself but from an earlier Christian hymn that Paul (and possibly his readers in Philippi) was taught.

If so, it shows us that even before Paul’s exalted view of Jesus, other Christians also believed that Jesus was divine and preexistent. The source of this passage may be early Christian oral traditions – specifically, those that developed around congregational worship. The form of this passage is a hymn – one which early Christians likely would have sung together at their meetings. So where does redaction criticism come in?

In short, redaction criticism grew out of form criticism.

What is Redaction Criticism?

The word “redaction” simply means editing, although these days it is almost exclusively applied to the academic study of the Bible.

What is the difference between redaction criticism and form criticism? Form criticism assumes that the texts of the Bible were combinations of different sources. Redaction criticism takes that idea and studies how the author or compiler of a text put together those sources in order to make theological points. In other words, the way in which the pieces are put together, as well as what is added to or left out of an original source, can reveal the author’s intention.

The Gospels are excellent texts to study in this way since they often present different versions of many of the same stories and sayings. Redaction critics use the differences to determine what specific point the authors were trying to convey. Let’s look at redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels.

Redaction Criticism in Matthew

Over and over in the Gospel of Matthew, the author refers to proof-texts from the Hebrew Bible. For example, in referring to Jesus’ miraculous conception, we see this verse:

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

“Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son and they shall name him Emmanuel…”

Why did the author of Matthew feel the need to paste together so many stories of Jesus with Hebrew Bible proof-texts? Well, he makes it pretty obvious: he believes Jesus is clearly the Messiah precisely because Jesus fulfills so many ancient prophecies. By contrast, Luke’s birth narrative doesn’t refer to prophecy at all, indicating that his concerns lay elsewhere.

Redaction Criticism in Luke

In another article, I noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share a lot of material. For redaction critics, though, the differences between them are most revealing. We find one important example of this in the Beatitudes in Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew 5:3, Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Luke 6:20 has Jesus say something similar: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” What could account for the difference here, assuming they were using the same source (known by scholars as Q)?

It would appear that for Luke, real, literal poverty is the major concern. That tracks well with the rest of Luke, which is concerned with uplifting the poor and downtrodden. Look, for example, at these verses from Mary’s song of praise in Luke 1:

[God] has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away empty.

Luke’s redaction of Q, then, reflects his focus on helping the poor.

Matthew and Luke’s Redaction of Mark: Jesus’ Rejection at Nazareth

Scholars know that since Mark was our earliest written Gospel, Matthew and Luke both used it as a source for their Gospels. As a final example, let’s look at how they took a story from Mark and edited it differently.

In Mark 6:2-3, Jesus goes back to Nazareth, his hometown, and preaches in the synagogue. His preaching astounds the locals who wonder how this local boy has become such a religious authority.

They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Jesus is rejected in his hometown in all the Synoptic Gospels. The key differences, though, are how Jesus is described or identified by the locals. In Mark he is a carpenter and the son of Mary, with no father named.

Checking in with Matthew, the description changes a bit.

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.

Now Jesus is not a carpenter but “the carpenter’s son.” What might this tell us about Matthew’s purpose?

Mark begins with Jesus as an adult being baptized and adopted as God’s son at his baptism. For Matthew, though, Jesus was the son of God at his conception. This means that for Mark, Jesus was likely a regular human being until being adopted by God. He could, therefore, have a normal life as a carpenter before his baptism.

But for Matthew, Jesus could have been raised by a carpenter but, as a divine person, would never have stooped so low as to be a carpenter.

What does Luke do with this story? His version of the locals’ description in Luke 4:22 is slightly different from both Mark’s and Matthew’s versions.

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”

Now Jesus is the son of Joseph. What is the significance of this? In ancient Palestine, sons were usually described as sons of their fathers. Luke, having his own version of Jesus’ divine origins, denies any connection with a low-status profession like carpentry and makes him the son of his father rather than the son of Mary. All of this raises Jesus’ status.

Conclusion: What Can Redaction Criticism Teach Us About the Gospels?

What is redaction criticism? Redaction criticism is a method of biblical interpretation in which we examine how an author (or compiler) of a text arranged and edited his sources in order to convey or emphasize his theological points.

Scholars know, for example, some of the sources used to create the Synoptic Gospels. By analyzing how those sources are put together and what is both added and subtracted from them, redaction critics attempt to discover the intention of the authors.

What can we Learn from redaction criticism? By seeing how Matthew and Luke differed in their use of Q as a source, for example, we can see how they emphasize different theological points.

For Matthew, Jesus is the Davidic Messiah fulfilling prophecies from the Hebrew Bible through his words and deeds. For Luke, on the other hand, Jesus is a teacher of wisdom who has come to save the poor and downtrodden.

Redaction criticism gives scholars information about the likely intentions of the Gospel authors.