Exposing Ehrman’s whoppers, and affirming the reliability of the New Testament

Michael Horton and New Testament Scholar Daniel Wallace discuss Bart Ehrman (and provide tremendous resources to correct his erroneous ramblings) in this edition of the White Horse Inn:

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2013/05/12/whi-1153-has-jesus-been-misquoted/

It has seemed to me that of all the many attacks that Christianity faces in our modern culture, the most egregious and harmful come in the form of the sensationalisms that Bart Ehrman has espoused. Ehrman, who is someone who ought to know that the sensationalisms he espouses are simply not what he publicly says they are, and yet he has “caught the popular imagination”.

Playing clips from Wallace/Ehrman debates (so we hear Ehrman’s whoppers in his own words), Horton and Wallace provide a popular-level response to some of the more egregious misconceptions that Ehrman has spread in his work “Misquoting Jesus” and others.

For example, when Ehrman says “we don’t have the original manuscripts” – he treats the issue as if we are playing the ‘telephone game’ in which errors become multiplied. But Wallace points out that when you compare the copying of the New Testament to the ‘telephone game’, first, the copies were done by hand, not orally, and second, it was not just a single line of transmission.

One of the things he doesn’t say is that we don’t have our earliest copies because they must have worn out. But he doesn’t say how they wore out. They would have worn out from people copying them.

Wallace relates that, off of the first generation of manuscripts, there may have been many multiple copyists making copies of that original manuscript. And the manuscript evidence is that we have a proliferation of imperfect first-generation copies, not a single lineage of them, enabling us to make comparisons of those manuscripts. And by comparing the manuscripts that we have, we can see scribal errors, categorize them, know what they are. Wallace provides this example:

Imagine we came across an early manuscript copy of the Constitution of the United States, and the preamble said, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect onion …” If we were to see that line, we would know that “union” was the original word, not “onion”.

Those are the kinds of mistakes we have find in the early manuscripts. They get corrected early on, leaving us with a far higher degree of reliability than in “the telephone game” or as Horton says, “the bigger fish game”.

As texts and copies proliferated, there is “an enormous amount of agreement among all these texts”. Also, when there are early copies with scribal errors, there is a constant re-correction early on.

The fact is, the more copies of manuscripts we have, the better, because the more we compare them, the more we are able to get back to the original texts.

As well, some manuscripts were in use for 100 or more years. Some of the original manuscripts may have actually lasted to the end of the second century. So it’s possible or even likely that some of the papyri we have may have been first or second generation copies of the original manuscripts.

Ehrman also makes the claim that 94% of the manuscripts we have are from the 9th century or later. In fact, more than 15% of the manuscripts we have are from prior to that time, and he ignores that from the 4th century on, we have complete manuscripts of the New Testament. So by the 9th century, we have six hundred or seven hundred manuscripts or more, and even by that time, we are already on very sound footing.

Ehrman also points out that there are more than 400,000 variants in these manuscripts. Wallace notes, however, that the reason why we have so many variants is because we have so many different manuscripts. In addition to the 5,500 Greek manuscripts, there are more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts, some from the second century, plus Coptic, Syriac, and other Asian and European languages from which to compare. And more manuscripts give you greater certainty as to what the original manuscripts said. Wallace estimates that there are perhaps more than 22,000 manuscripts in existence.

The nature of the differences, the vast majority (70% or more) are spelling variations, in which the wording is not in question. Definite articles, “more perfect onions”. A huge number of variations simply involve the use of the definite article in Greek. The word “the”, for example, there are 16 different ways in Greek to say “Jesus loves Paul” – but all of them get translated in exactly the same way.

Less than 1% of “textual variants”, in fact, are what Wallace calls “meaningful”, that is, it affects the meaning of the text in some way, and “viable”, which means that it can be traced back to the original wording. About ¼ of 1%. In about 1000 places there are variations that are meaningful or viable.

But in fact, not one doctrine is affected by these “meaningful” or “viable” variants.

A couple of Ehrman’s “whipping boys” involve such things as Mark 1:41, in which different variations say “Jesus was moved with anger” or “Jesus was moved with compassion” to heal the leper. It’s not out of the ordinary to think that Jesus was “moved with anger” about a disease.

Another is 1 John 5:7, the Trinitarian formula, was not in Erasmus’s original manuscripts.

He also compares the NT manuscript evidence with the number of Greek and Latin “classics”. For example, we have more copies of Homer – with a 900-year head start, we have 2200 copies of Odyssey and Iliad, only 10% as many manuscripts as what we have for the New Testament.

In fact, for other Greek writers like Aristotle or Plato, the number of manuscripts is far, far smaller. And yet we don’t contest whether we’re really reading those individuals. The earliest MSS of the New Testament come within decades.

This caught my ear because my 14-year-old daughter was asking me about “the telephone game” with respect to New Testament manuscripts. I highly recommend that you give this a listen, and even spread the word among popular circles like Twitter and Facebook (see the links immediately below this article).

This is an area where a discussion like this one can really help to correct some popular misconceptions and restore confidence in the textual transmission of the New Testament that Ehrman and others have undermined.

This entry was posted in Holy Scripture, New Testament, Textual Transmission and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Exposing Ehrman’s whoppers, and affirming the reliability of the New Testament

  1. Steven Avery says:

    Hi,

    “10,000 Latin manuscripts, some from the second century”

    Nope, let’s get the facts straight.
    The earliest extant Latin mss are from the 4th or 5th century.

    “And more manuscripts give you greater certainty as to what the original manuscripts said. Wallace estimates that there are perhaps more than 22,000 manuscripts in existence.”

    The text approved by Daniel Wallace, the Critical Text, consistently, 100s of times, gives readings that are contra the great mass of mss. Take the traditional Mark ending as a simple example, where 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss support the historic text and Wallace insists the .1% are correct. Thus his appeal to the mass of manuscripts in Greek, Latin and the versions is fallacious in one of two ways:

    a) the appeal is false
    b) the text he approves is a corrupt text

    Steven Avery

  2. Maestroh says:

    Once again, we have Steven Avery, a Oneness heretic who REJECTS the Trinity coming out and pretending as if he is entitled to claim the mantle of “Reformed” simply because of his obscurantist KJV Onlyism. And once again, we see his incredibly hypocritical method at work. Dude, if you’re going to bash people for inconsistency you CANNOT be inconsistent yourself. Let’s take a look at the whine:

    1) First, Avery whines about the following quote: “10,000 Latin manuscripts, some from the second century.” We get the usual condescending, “Nope, let’s get the facts straight.
    The earliest extant Latin mss are from the 4th or 5th century.” Now this is one of those cases where this is literally true, but the problem is that Avery himself has tried to say the same thing using different words multiple times. Repeatedly he appeals to the Old Latin going back to as early as the second century. But hey, if you’ve ever had the misfortune of running into this guy, you’ll find that he has two sets of rules: one for himself and one for everyone else.

    2) The text approved by Daniel Wallace, the Critical Text, consistently, 100s of times, gives readings that are contra the great mass of mss.

    What’s amazing is that today on Facebook after a decade of whining about this and using prejudicial terms like “ultra-minority,” the Earle of Avery gave us this gem: “And anyone who understands a bit of probability knows that a few dozen manuscripts will tell you the same basic breakdown as 5,000 manuscripts.”

    Ah, so in other words, it doesn’t really matter, right? This one will live forever. And Avery himself favors readings like 1 John 5:7 found in only a few MSS and readings like Rev 16:5 that suddenly got invented late. So the pretense is amusing to say the least.

    3) “Thus his appeal to the mass of manuscripts in Greek, Latin and the versions is fallacious in one of two ways:
    a) the appeal is false
    b) the text he approves is a corrupt text”

    Of course, we just saw that Avery himself does exactly what he’s whining about his pet hate, Dan Wallace. But here’s an amusing one for you: how is that with his corrupt (according to Avery) text, Wallace is a hundred times more Reformed than Avery is? How is that even possible if Avery’s claim is true? Wallace is a five-point Calvinist, a cessationist, and believes in the Trinity. Avery is a Oneness heretic who rejects the Trinity and holds to charismania.

    I guess it just shows this argument is colossally stupid. But perhaps Avery needs to drop his pet hate and learn how to judge things logically, consistently, and not so hypocritically. The very things he complains about Wallace, he himself does.

  3. willjkinney says:

    Hi all. Well I AM a solid 5 point Calvinist and a Trinitarian and I also believe the King James Bible is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. Dan Wallace SAYS he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, but he (just like James White) couldn’t show you a copy of this infallible Bible they both PROFESS (and lie about) to believe in if their lives depended on it.

    Dan Wallace is in fact promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman stuff. And he doesn’t believe that ANY of the is the inerrant words of God either. Nor does Maestroh.

    If you don’t believe these critical text versions are the direct result of the Vatican, then read the documentation from right out of your own Nestle-Aland textbook 27th edition page 45. Then do the verse, phrase and word comparisons with the modern Catholic versions. They are ALL based on THE SAME “inter confessional” text to unite “the separated brethren”.

    Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

    How ironic that Calvinists have abandoned the Reformation text of the Bible and are now promoting the Vatican Versions. God does have an ironic sense of humor and will humble us all when we finally realize just how much we got wrong and fought against Him and His pure words.

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

  4. willjkinney says:

    Hi all. If you want to take a look at some concrete examples of Dan Wallaces “scholarship”, here are some very specific examples. It is interesting that just over 60 years ago Dallas Theological Seminary severely criticized (and with good reason) the liberal RSV, specifically on three verses. Well, here we are 60 years later at that same Dallas Theological Seminary and Dan Wallace has put these three errors right back in his ever evolving NET versions.

    See for yourself.

    Dan Wallace is Messing with The Book

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s