Bart Ehrman claims that much of the New Testament (NT) is
forged. How would Ehrman feel if someone
claimed that his dozens of books were written by someone else (cowabunga
dude!)? Paul warned of forgeries, “Don’t
let anyone shake you up or get you excited over some breathless report or
rumored letter from me that the day of the Master’s arrival has come and gone”
(2 Thes. 2:2 Msg). Paul proved his
authenticity, “I, Paul, bid you good-bye in my own handwriting. I do this in all my letters, so examine
my signature as proof that the letter is genuine” (2 Thes. 3:17 Msg). See also 1 Cor. 16:21, Gal. 6:11 and Col.
4:18. Tychicus would have verified that the
letters to Ephesus and Colosse were really from Paul (Eph. 6:21,22, Col. 4:7). The Early Church Fathers (ECF) provide strong
support that the traditional authors of the gospels really did write them.
Ehrman went to Moody Bible Institute and graduated from
Wheaton College in 1978 (cf. 1 Jn 2:19).
In light of his skepticism, it makes one wonder what kind of apologetics
Ehrman was exposed to. Ehrman now denies
the God of the Bible, “I don’t ‘know’ if there is a God; but I think that if
there is one, he certainly isn’t the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian
tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world.” [1] Given Ehrman’s opinion, can he give the NT a
fair hearing?
Darrell Bock has a clever way of explaining that
orthodoxy already existed at the time the NT was written: Schooling
(creeds), Singing (hymns) and Sacraments. Creeds and hymns in the NT include 1 Cor.
8:4-6, 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Phil. 2:6-11; Col.1:15-20; Eph. 4:4-6 and 1 Tim. 3:16. The sacraments also proclaim a message (1
Cor. 11:23-26). Any supposed forgeries
would have been exposed since they did not comport with Apostolic tradition.
On another front, Ehrman has troubles with all the
variants in NT manuscripts, “Given these problems, how can we hope to get back
to anything like the original text …?” [2]
Ehrman’s views are not new – Henry Smith, writing in 1893, claimed that
original NT message could not be recovered. [3]
In 1989 Shirley MacLaine was on the Larry King show and claimed that the
Bible has been changed and translated so many times that is cannot really be
accurate. Ehrman makes a big deal about
a variant that has Jesus as being angry in Mk. 1:41. [4] Christ is clearly angry in Mk. 3:5 and Mk.
10:14 – anger is not a sin (Eph. 4:26).
Ehrman dedicated Misquoting
Jesus to Bruce Metzger (d. 2007) and said that he was “the world’s leading
expert in the field [of textual criticism].” [5] What was Metzger’s opinion of NT
variants? Lee Strobel, former
award-winning legal editor of the Chicago
Tribune and skeptic until 1981, spent 18 pages on his interview with
Metzger. According to Metzger, early NT
translations or citations in the Early Church Fathers (ECF) are sufficient to
reproduce the entire text. [6] Metzger
said, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the
church. … [The NT is] 99.5 percent pure.” [7]
I think I’ll go with “the world’s leading expert.”
In the days of Nehemiah the copies of copies of the
scriptures at hand were sufficient (Neh. 8:8).
Nothing was “lost in transmission” (Ehrman’s suggested title). “To the law and to the testimony! If they
do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”
(Is. 8:20). If the Law is not preserved,
how can we use it as a guide? “Now go,
write it before them on a tablet, and note it on a scroll, that it may be for
time to come, forever and ever” (Is. 30:8).
God’s Word will remain forever (Is. 40:8, Mt. 5:18) so by the Lord’s
sovereign plan it will be preserved. “It
is written” appears 61 times in the NT, so Jesus and the Apostles held that the
Old Testament (OT) copies they used had sufficient purity to represent the
original words that God inspired. Jesus
said that the people in his day have Moses and the Prophets (Lk 16:29) –
not that there are so many variants that we don’t know what we have! The Lord Jesus Christ prophesied that the
account of His anointing at Bethany would be preserved (Mk 14:9).
Is it possible for an ancient text to be transcribed
properly? Look at the notes at the
bottom of your Bible in the book of Isaiah – you’ll find that the variants from
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) version are minor.
This represents a basically pure transmission of one thousand years (100 BC to 900 AD). The fact that the gates of Hell cannot
withstand the growth of the Body of Christ ensures that the Bible (OT/NT) will
be preserved pure to the end (Mt. 16:18).
Ehrman claims that, “I am intimately familiar with what
evangelical scholars have said about the Bible.
I simply do not find their views convincing.” [8]
Greg Bahnsen asked a question in 1980 from a skeptic’s
perspective and sounds much like Bart Ehrman, “If God took the trouble and
deemed it crucial to secure the entire accuracy of the original text of
Scripture, why did He not take greater care to preserve the copies errorless?”
[9] Bahnsen takes 43 pages to answer
this question and does a superb job. Bahnsen
points out that, “There is no scriptural warrant for holding that God will
perform the perpetual miracle of preserving His written Word from all errors in
its being transcribed from on copy to another.” [10] However, all is not lost. Can you discern the original Mark Twain quote
from these three less-than-perfect versions?Likewise, we can compare manuscript with manuscript of the NT to restore the original wording. The good copies correct the bad. God used imperfect people and copies to preserve his Word, “A crushed reed He will not utterly break, nor will He quench the still smoldering wick, until He has led on Justice to victory” (Mt. 12:20 Wey).
Paul planned to visit Spain (Rom. 15:24,28) and the
Apostle Thomas visited India, so the early copies of the NT were widely
distributed geographically. No one
person could have corrupted all the texts – there were just too many of them in
too many places! God has providentially
protected the message of the NT.
Virtually all the errors are insignificant and the others do not affect
any major doctrine. We should not add or
subtract from God’s Word (Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Pr 30:6). Did not those who copied the NT take
reverential care in their task?
Paleographer Sir Frederic Kenyon (d. 1952) held a number
of positions with the British Museum. He
was also president of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and
concluded that,
The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early
translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the
Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every
doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient
authorities. [11]
Philologist Richard Bentley (d. 1742) remarked, "The
real text of the sacred writers [of the NT is] … competently exact indeed in
the worst [manuscript] now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept
either perverted or lost in them.” [12]
There are a number of errors in Misquoting Jesus – should we then question the accuracy of the
entire volume?
The Hebrew on the dust jacket is upside down
Desiderius is misspelled, p. 70 scriptio is misspelled, pp. 48, 90
πνα is misspelled, p. 91
parablepsis is misspelled, p. 91
Acts 17:30 is confused for Acts 17:27, p. 192
Acts 2:36 is confused for Acts 2:38, p. 160
LaHaye, who helped start icr, is misspelled, pp. 13, 110
The gospel is from God it is not an invention (Gal.
1:11,12, 2 Pet. 1:16). Does Paul refer
to NT scriptures already written in 1 Cor. 15:3? Paul’s instruction must be obeyed since they
have divine authority (2 Thes. 3:14). Paul’s
words in his letters are also God’s Word (1 Cor 14:37). Peter confirmed that Paul wrote multiple
letters and that they are scripture (2 Pet. 3:15,16). Luke, the doctor with the scientific mind,
carefully researched his information and spoke with eyewitnesses when writing
his gospel (Lk. 1:1-4).
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would make sure that
the Apostles had total recall of Christ’s words (Jn 14:26). Many eyewitnesses were around in the time
that Paul wrote (1 Cor 15:6). Richard Bauckham,
New Testament Professor at the University of St. Andrews, has written Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, where he
analyzes the frequency of Jewish names and how they were used and other lines
of evidence to defend the NT. Peter
Williams has given a riveting presentation based on similar data. John A.T. Robinson (d. 1983), who was part of
the “Death of God” movement, has dated all NT books to before 70 AD. His reasoning is largely based on the fact
that no NT author mentions the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This, of course, favors the view that the NT
is based on eyewitness accounts.
We suggest these works defending the Bible and Christianity aimed at a general audience:
Skeptics Answered by D. James Kennedy
How Do We Know the Bible is True? (Vol.
1) ed. by Ham & Hodge.
Timothy Paul Jones of The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary has written a response to Misquoting
Jesus. The Ehrman Project provides a
number of helpful resources, including a dialog between Ehrman and Dan
Wallace. Ehrman’s wife is a committed
Christian and part of the Episcopal church.
Pinchas Lapide (d. 1997), former New Testament Professor
at Gottingen University, wrote TheResurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective which defends the historicity
of the physical resurrection of Christ.
Lapide was not a Christian and did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Time
magazine (May 7, 1979) covered Lapide’s conclusions. Christ’s resurrection verifies his deity, “his
unique identity as Son of God was shown by the Spirit when Jesus was raised
from the dead, setting him apart as the Messiah, our Master” (Rom. 1:4 Msg). Christ’s deity confirms the message of the
Apostles (Eph. 2:20) we now have written in the NT.
Has a mainstream NT scholar converted to a conservative
view of the Bible? Yes! Eta Linnemann (d. 2009) studied under Rudolf
Bultmann, but was saved by grace and became a born again Bible-believing
Christian. She apparently took a strong
stand on creation. [13] Linnemann wrote Biblical Criticism on Trial defending
the Scripture. In contrast, Bultmann
said, “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] …and at the
same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.” [14]
Let us heed the wise words of John Gresham Machen (d.
1937) who was Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary until 1929,
We know that the gospel story is true partly because of
the early date of the documents in which it appears, the evidence as to their authorship,
the internal evidence of their truth, the impossibility of explaining them as
being based upon deception or upon myth.
This evidence is gloriously confirmed by present experience, which adds
to the documentary evidence that wonderful directness and immediacy of
conviction which delivers us from fear [cf. Rom. 5:1-5]. [15]
… of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes
found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant,
immaterial, of no real importance …
-- Bart Ehrman [16]
Part 2 of this series deals with Ehrman’s claim that Luke
overlooks the atonement.
Notes:
1) God’s Problem
by Bart Ehrman (HarperOne, NYC, 2008), p. 4.2) Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (HarperCollins, NYC, 2005), p. 58.
3) “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” by Greg Bahnsen in Inerrancy ed. by Norman Geisler (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1980), pp. 157, 158 & 460.
4) Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (HarperCollins, NYC, 2005), pp. 133-139.
5) Ibid., pp. v, 7.
6) The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998), p. 59.
7) Ibid., p. 65.
8) personal email, 1-1-2006.
9) Bahnsen, p. 182.
10) Ibid., p. 176.
11) quoted in Surprised by Faith by Don Bierle (Emerald Books, Lynnwood, WA, 1992), p. 36.
12) Bahnsen, pp. 187, 188.
13) Historical Criticism of the Bible by Eta Linnemann (Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI, 1990), pp. 55, 70.
14) quoted in Harper’s Concise Book of Christian Faith by Tony Lane (Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984), p. 199.
15) Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1923), p. 72.
16) Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (HarperCollins, NYC, 2005), p. 207.
No comments:
Post a Comment