"Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?"
~ Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order
I remember when I was first asked that question when I was being ordained as a ruling elder in the PCA. I answered yes. The words "as originally given" jumped out at me. If what we believe about inerrancy (w/o error) and infallibility (unable to lead into error) applies the Word of God in its original form, what about now? Can we trust what has been transmitted down to us 20 centuries after Christ went to the cross?
To answer a question like that, you have to go to an expert. That is what Lee Strobel did. He interviewed Dr. Daniel Wallace, an expert in the field of textual criticism and ancient languages.
Here is what I gleaned from the chapter describing the Wallace interview.
"The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all the essentials - not in every particular, but in all essentials - our New Testament manuscripts go back to the originals. Ehrman is part of a very small minority of textual critics in what he is saying."
~Wallace, p.72
Like with many things in life, we accept things on the authority of others. Textual criticism is not my field, so I look to experts like Wallace for help. I am interested to know if Ehrman speaks for the majority of scholars, or is he speaking for a small number of critics. It would appear the latter.
People sometimes think the Bible was transmitted to us just like the game of telephone is played. Wallace does a nice job of dispelling that. First, there are multiple streams of transmission coming down to us -- not one as in the game of telephone. Imagine playing telephone with the same message starting out in three lines instead of one. You could interview and compare the message received at the end of all three lines. Second, the Bible was a written transmission versus a spoken transmission like in the telephone game. Big difference. Third, we don't just have the most recent copy. We have older copies -- some very old. In the telephone analogy, it would be like having permission to go interview people near the front of the line too. Putting it all together, Wallace makes a compelling point that the telephone game analogy breaks down badly.
Wallace also makes the point that we have a large number of manuscripts available to us from the first ten centuries -- some fragments have survived from as far back as the second century. There are 5,700 Greek copies of the New Testament from antiquity ... and the number seems to grow each year. We also have 10,000 copies in Latin. When you add other ancient languages, the number grows to 30,000 copies from the first millenium. That is a lot to look at. Not only that, but we have the quotations from the ancient church fathers.
"The ancient church fathers quoted so often from the New Testament that it would be possible to reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from their writings alone. All told, there are one million quotations of the New Testament in their writings. They date as early as the first century and continue through the 13th century."
~ Wallace, p.83
Lots of manuscripts produce a lot of variants. So what about those variants?
First off, any difference in the manuscript counts as a variant. It doesn't matter if the difference changes the meaning or not. Mispellings count. Words out of order count. If you used the indefinite article "a" versus "an" it would count. At the end of the day, seventy to eighty percent of the variants amount to spelling differences that have zero impact on meaning.
Let's cut to the chase.
"Only about one percent of variants are both meaningful, which means they alter the meaning of the text to some degree, and viable, which means they have a decent chance of going back to the original text."
~ Wallace, p.87
Wallace cites two of the most notorious examples. Romans 5:1 ... did Paul say "We have peace" or "Let us have peace". Note the text note in the ESV in the link I gave you. And then there is 1 John 1:4. Is it "our" joy may be complete, or "your" joy may be complete.
Hardly earth shaking variants.
Ehrman's big claim, however, is that scribes intentionally changed the text.
Wallace addresses this on p.88
"Well, he is absolutely correct. Sometimes scribes did intentionally change the text. They wanted to make the text more explicit. Through the centuries, for example, the church started to use sections of scripture for daily readings. These are called lectionaries. About 2,200 of our Greek manuscripts are lectionaries, where they will set forth a year's worth of daily scripture readings. In the Gospel of Mark, there are eighty-nine verses in a row where the name of Jesus isn't mentioned once. Just pronouns are used, with 'he' referring to Jesus ... So it was logical for a scribe to replace 'he' with 'Jesus' in order to be more specific in the lectionary."
Besides these trivial examples, Wallace does not over state his case and claim that no scribe ever changed any text for a theological reason. Wallace says that the most common types of changes in this category were harmonizations between the Gospels. And, the further away from the originals you get, the easier it is to detect this.
So what cardinal or essential doctrine is threatened by any passages that show the signs of tinkering?
None.
The closest, Wallace asserts, is Mark 9:29. Some manuscripts suggest that "prayer and fasting" is required to cast out some demons ... versus just "prayer". Another example is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 because there is some dispute as to where this passage appears in the letter. The most interesting dispute, in my opinion, is over Revelation 13:18. The sign of the beast may actually be 616 instead of 666. Wouldn't that throw a nasty curve ball into all of those movies and books about end times?
The most famous passages that are disputed are John 7:53-8:11 and the ending of Mark's gospel. There are clear notes in my Bible giving the reader a heads up about both passages. Just look at the footnotes in the link provided.
The significant thing about these disputed passages, in my opinion, is neither prove fatal to any core Christian belief (orthodoxy) or Christian practice (orthopraxy).
Sorry for the length of this post, but this topic is a technical one. If you wish to read a detailed rebuttal to Ehrman's work, I recommend .
What I like about Strobel's book is that it does a nice job of introducing the reader to the world of world of textual criticism in an accessible format.
Laughing Boy also offers some links to free web resources including such experts as Dr. Mark Roberts.
Next week, I hope to post on the issue of inerrancy. This issue seems to be a stumbling block to some. I will share my thoughts on it.
Wouldn't scholars across the theological spectrum disagree about what is essential? If you view the New Testament as the product of human efforts, then your idea of what is essential may be much different and much less than that of someone who believes them to be inspired by God.
Posted by: Vinny | September 29, 2007 at 16:55
"Wouldn't scholars across the theological spectrum disagree about what is essential?"
I bet even liberal theologians know the difference between issues of orthodoxy (belief) versus orthopraxy (practice) ... I bet even a liberal theologian knows the difference between what doctrines Christians consider fatal versus damaging.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | October 01, 2007 at 14:03
The problem I have is that a liberal theologian and a conservative theologian are not going to agree about which doctrines are essential so that they may mean different things when they say they say that the New Testament documents go back to the originals in all the essentials.
Posted by: Vinny | October 01, 2007 at 14:27
What doctrines (whether essential or otherwise) would you consider to be under threat by any of the known variations of the text of the New Testament?
Posted by: Ben | October 01, 2007 at 21:47
Ben,
Not sure who your question is directed to. I would say no doctrines are under threat by known variations.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | October 02, 2007 at 04:41
That's what I had thought.
It does seem to be the key issue - whether our understanding of God, or of how we should live, is altered by choosing one or another reading.
Properly, my question was directed at Vinny; I was trying to flush out what issues he thinks come up because of the existence of variants. (My bad for not directing my comment to him.) Vinny, I'm curious as to your thoughts - provided you can bring something up other than inerrancy (because that's never been assumed to extend to copies, and is in any case a whole other topic).
Posted by: Ben | October 02, 2007 at 20:02
Ben,
I don’t think that inerrancy is “a whole other topic.” This discussion arose from Lee Strobel’s interview with Daniel Wallace in “The Case for the Real Jesus,” which was a response to Bart Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus.” The thesis of Ehrman’s book concerns the implications of the existence of variants for the doctrine of inerrancy. So asking me to exclude inerrancy from my comments seems like a pretty severe restriction.
As far as this discussion goes, I am a little curious about the assertion that inerrancy has “never been assumed to extend to copies.” For example, the Westminster Confession says that the Old and New Testaments were “immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages,” which sounds to me like God was working with the copyists as well as the original authors. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy incorporates this statement by reference and includes an affirmation that the originals “in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy,” which I guess means that God keeps an eye on the textual critics. In either case, it seems clear that some affirmation about the transmission process is necessary to an understanding of inerrancy.
It sounds to me like Daniel Wallace’s position would only support an affirmation along the following lines: “We affirm that none of the known variants or alterations in the manuscripts poses a threat to that which we understand to be essential Christian doctrine.” This is considerably less definite than either the Westminster Confession or the Chicago Statement and leaves the believer with no assurances about alterations or variations that have not yet been discovered.
Posted by: Vinny | October 03, 2007 at 15:25
Vinny,
I admit that I've read neither "Misquoting Jesus" nor "The Case for the Real Jesus".
I can speak to the Chicago Statement (assuming there are no copyist errors in the version I have on the computer screen in front of me *grins*). Article X, of which you quote the second part of the first sentence, begins with an affirmation that "inspiration...applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". So it's misleading to say that the Statement says the transmission of Scripture has been inerrant, though as you say it does go on to say the contents of the autographs can be ascertained "with great accuracy".
I imagine that the authors of the Confession had something similar in mind. If not, the Confession (which I've never read) could be wrong on this matter, and it wouldn't trouble me in the slightest.
We can still use our Bibles; and mine, at least, contains footnotes to let me know of variants or alternative renderings. This does not say to me, "Both variants are definitely mistakes - and by the way, the author of the original made a mistake too". I, instead, would think, "One or other of these variants is most likely what the author wrote. But I don't know which." Indeed, the claim put forward is that we can, from our copies, reproduce the sense of the original. Not that all copies reproduce the original in every last little detail (e.g., spelling, noun/pronoun substitution).
As for alterations and variations that aren't yet discovered - I, at least, will cross that bridge when I come to it. And I don't see other documents being chucked out on those grounds. For example, no-one is arguing that the US Constitution is null and void because we might in the future find a copy of it that is materially different.
Posted by: Ben | October 03, 2007 at 20:28
I agree that the Chicago Statement does not claim inerrancy in the transmission of Scripture, but I don’t think that this is the message that evangelicals get from their pulpits. “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” I have heard preachers say that many times while referring to some translation that they are holding in their hands. On the other hand, I have never heard one of them qualify it by saying that what they mean is either that their copy contains no variants that threaten essential Christian doctrine or that their copy reproduces the sense of the original. That may be what the preachers really mean, but I doubt that this is what the average Christian in the pew really understands.
Posted by: Vinny | October 04, 2007 at 13:21
Vinny and Ben,
I have enjoyed the discussion.
re: "So it's misleading to say that the Statement says the transmission of Scripture has been inerrant, though as you say it does go on to say the contents of the autographs can be ascertained 'with great accuracy'."
This is the same meaning as the Westminster Confession when it says "pure". It does not mean error free. It means free of errors of any consequence.
Vinny, I agree with you that average Christian sitting in the pew does not understand textual criticism. He does not know about the wealth of surviving old manuscripts we have either. He does not know that there are variants in pronouns and indefinite articles. He does not know that John 7:53 - 8:11 does not appear in some early manuscripts. I am willing to concede all of that.
There are many of us who know and don't lose a moment's sleep over it. Why? Because theologians and scholars have known every argument Ehrman raises. To my knowledge, Ehrman has uncovered absolutely nothing new.
His contribution has been to write a popular book about stuff that has been known for centuries. The burden of proof is on Ehrman to make a case that the Bible is suddenly bogus due to some kind of ongoing giant conspiracy theory committed by scribes the world around for centuries in a row.
Ehrman's mentor, Bruce Metzger, had no worries at all. Metzger's credentials far surpass Ehrman's. The majority of Biblical scholars continue to find Metzger's view the correct view. Metzger's view continues to grow stronger each year as we continue to find more old copies of the scriptures.
The burden of proof falls on Ehrman, and he has failed to convince many experts. Ehrman is persuasive to those who know very little about textual criticism.
I agree with Ben. If we suddenly find consistent variants that alter meaning in really old manuscripts ... and these altered meanings call into question core Christian beliefs or practices ... then we have a problem. The current trend line continues to move away from Ehrman and toward Metzger. Right now the default position should fall toward Metzger. But if you are not convinced, let's re-visit the discussion a year from now and see what new evidence has been uncovered.
Thanks for the great discussion. Have a great weekend, both of you!
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | October 06, 2007 at 09:39
I was originally drawn to this discussion because I felt that Ehrman’s position was not being fairly represented in Strobel’s book and I still feel that way. Somehow, I just don’t think that his book can fairly be described as an argument that “the Bible is suddenly bogus due to some kind of ongoing giant conspiracy theory committed by scribes the world around for centuries in a row.” He does not pretend that he has discovered something new nor he does not claim that there was any conspiracy. He describes the ways in which the text of scripture was changed by scribes and explains the implications of those changes (as he sees it) for the way he came to think about the Bible from the time he became a born-again Christian as a teenager through his studies at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College.
Like Ehrman, I was drawn to evangelical Christianity as a teenager as it seemed to offer the meaning that I was looking for in my life. I think I was most attracted by the promise of certainty in a world full of doubts. I could know that I was saved. I could know God’s will for my life. I could know what was true and what was false. This was how the Gospel was presented to me and this was what I wanted for my life. Although I conducted no investigation prior to accepting Christ, I wanted to understand the basis of my faith and I did a lot of reading afterwards.
Like Ehrman, I came to doubt my faith as I found things were not as certain as I had originally thought. I remember reading Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and thinking that the proofs were not nearly as convincing as preachers claimed them to be. It just seemed like all the proofs of the Bible’s truth depended on the assumption that the stories in the Bible were true. I remember fervently seeking God’s will for my life and still winding up reaching the wrong conclusion. Yet there always seemed to be a loophole like “God answer’s prayers but sometimes his answer is ‘no’ or ‘wait’.” Although I did not delve into textual criticism at the time, I think that Ehrman’s book would fit right into the skepticism I was developing about the faith I had embraced.
Now it may be perfectly true that scholars have known about Ehrman’s arguments for years, but I didn’t know about them when I made my decision to become a Christian. Had I known about them as well as other things I learned as time went on, I might have thought the Bible was not quite as sure a thing as the people who were witnessing to me said. Some people may not lose a moment’s sleep over it because they understand the nuances of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. On the other hand, as Daniel Wallace noted, some people feel “hoodwinked” because (I suspect) the certainty that they were promised they would find in their faith turns out not to be quite as certain. It’s like being confronted by all the fine print in an insurance contract when you make a claim after years of seeing commercials telling you about your “good neighbor.”
As far as the majority of scholars favoring Metzger’s position over Ehrman’s, I am still troubled by the fact that claims are being attributed to Ehrman’s that I have not seen him make. I am also troubled by Strobel’s methodology. He only interviews conservative Christian scholars for his books, which causes me to question his sample. More importantly, I think he tends to exaggerate sometimes. I watched his “Case for a Creator” video where he proclaimed that “more and more” scientists were becoming convinced by various intelligent design arguments that in fact have virtually no support outside the Discovery Institute. Of course, being in a distinct minority disproves neither Ehrman nor intelligent design.
Posted by: Vinny | October 08, 2007 at 08:33
Vinny,
Send me your address (privately through email). I want to send you Reinventing Jesus as a gift. Strobel's interview with Wallace is not sufficient to answer Ehrman's arguments. You need meat, not an appetizer.
Mr. D.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | October 08, 2007 at 12:57
Vinny,
Thanks for sharing your story.
I came to faith in Christ at a young age. The doubts followed later in life. I found Sagan's arguments against Christianity (or any religion) devastating ... especially in my early college years. I thot science and technology had the real answers and Christianity was based on wishful thinking.
In my dark night of the soul, I read voraciously. C.S. Lewis was an influential force in my life at that time (hence the name of my blog after my favorite Lewis book). I also read heavily in the area of science and faith. I also was influenced by Francis Schaeffer.
Unlike Ehrman, I found the answers I was searching for. I recognized that faith was not wishful thinking or blind leaping ... but a confident trust placed with good reasons.
I found that truth exists, knowledge of truth is possible, and that we are called to know Christ and be united with him ... not to just take a leap and hope for the best. We can discuss that in greater depth, if you like.
Doubts are normal. God seems to put Christians wrestling with doubt issues across my path all the time -- I guess because it is central to my own story.
re: Ehrman
I may be guilty of attributing stuff to Ehrman that he has not said. I checked out Miquoting Jesus from the library. I will read his argument for scribes with agendas deliberately corrupting text.
He will have a to make a really strong case because his view is in clearly in the minority ... and was not held by his mentor.
The burden of proof is on Ehrman. Speculations won't cut it. I will reserve judgment until reading.
Again, variants are what they are ... variants. Given enough surviving manuscripts from antiquity, then variants amount to copy errors found in some manuscripts ... whether deliberate or accidental.
Too much of the New Testament does not vary to throw it out or to cast serious doubt upon the life and mission of Jesus Christ.
re: Strobel and McDowell
Do they cherry pick experts? Absolutely. Does it mean those experts don't have credentials or know what they are talking about? No.
What ultimately matters is if the testimony of these experts is credible. If it is, then we ought to take it seriously.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | October 08, 2007 at 13:43
I think I will wait until you are done reading Ehrman. At that point, I will be interested to know which apologetic works you would recommend as best addressing his arguments.
I came across an interesting quote from an earlier book by Ehrman "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament" "I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct any book of the ancient world." My understanding is that this book formed the basis for "Misquoting Jesus."
Posted by: Vinny | October 09, 2007 at 14:44