CreationCrisis.com
  
Biblical Reliability Research

4/30/08 — Since much of what I wrote on CreationCrisis.com sounds like a (perhaps unwarranted) attack on the reliability of Scripture — which can be especially offensive to fundamentalist Christians — I wanted to include some research links related to this very controversial issue. 
 
Bart Ehrman was a faithful Christian man who graduated from Moody Bible Institute years ago (where I spent a little over a semester myself).  After discovering 'Scriptural reliability' issues he was unaware of until his studies at Moody, Bart painstakingly researched the ancient biblical texts and made some startling discoveries that eventually led him to abandon the faith.  I recently became aware of Dr. Ehrman and his research through a newsletter I receive. 
 
What he has uncovered about the original texts of Scripture is extremely discouraging to say the least, and could potentially destroy anyone's faith.  My own faith was once again rocked as I read about his findings.  But since I don't want to abandon the faith, I try to keep my eyes open to reality, while keeping my heart open to God. 
 
If you choose to read this information, please proceed with caution and prayer! 
 
Eternity is a very long time to be wrong — that's what I keep reminding myself! 

 
...Still hoping to die with my faith intact!
   — Mark Bradford


Misquoting Jesus:  Does Bart Erhman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

This article is written by a conservative Christian who believes Dr.Ehrman is being too harsh, as it were, in his judgment of Scriptural reliability.  One revealing quote in the article underscores how easy it is for a person's faith to be destroyed when they have an unrealistic understanding of what Scripture is:
   
"Dr. Craig Evans cites Erhman’s quote in Fabricating Jesus. He states that Erhman’s line of reasoning is “so typical of brittle fundamentalism.”10 He continues by stating “rigid ideas about the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture underlie Erhman’s problem.”11 Evans summarizes that “
the truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture…but on the resurrection of Jesus.12 Throughout Fabricating Jesus, Evans points out that 
  
Many people, like Erhman, have lost their faith because they have an inflexible understanding of what inerrancy and verbal inspiration mean."
 
 —From:
Misquoting Jesus:  Does Bart Erhman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?
  
  
READ THE ARTICLE:  Misquoting Jesus:  Does Bart Erhman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?
  


Bart Ehrman's personal website
 
Bart Ehrman's books

    
• CLICK THE BOOK COVERS BELOW TO READ REVIEWS OF THE BOOKS, WHICH PROVIDE EXCELLENT
  SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THESE TOPICS:

 


Reviews of Dr. Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, featured on Amazon.com
BELOW



BOOK REVIEW By 
    
Steven W. Cooper (Smithville, TN United States)    
In a little over 200 pages, Ehrman gets to the point of how the New Testament came to be what it is today. No, it didn't just appear leather-bound, shiny, and new after Jesus' resurrection; rather, it was painstakingly cobbled together decades after Jesus' crucifixion from copies of copies of copies of (you get the point) the original writings of the New Testament authors, which were slowly altered over time by scribes that handed them down (sometimes by accident or othertimes intentionally by those meaning to "correct" things in the scriptures that didn't make sense). All in all, Ehrman makes his case well, that even if the New Testament scriptures started out as the inspired word of God, we humans have certainly gotten our filthy little hands on it and have made it quite difficult to discern what the "original" writers (whose texts have been lost) actually wrote. Thus, we can only try to piece it together through the challenging art of textual criticism, which is what this book is largely about.
 

 
BOOK REVIEW By  B. Breen  (Sterling, VA USA)
        
This is the first book of Ehrman's I have read. I found it interesting and well-written for the average person who has little background in Biblical Textual Studies, (which equates to more than 99% of the population.)

I do not have the credentials of Dr. Ehrman, but I do have the equivalent of a degree in Biblical Literature and have worked in the original languages. My Senior Thesis was doing a textual comparison of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi with the parallel passages of the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13. To do that I had to teach myself some Coptic Egyptian and do some translating to form a basis for comparison.

All that said to establish that I have some background to make an evaluation of what is being said in this book.

I also have some common ground with Dr. Ehrman in life history. I too was trained as an evangelical with a very high view of inspiration and further had to struggle as I became aware of how difficult it is to interact with the text in its manuscript and historical form all while becoming painfully aware of the fact that any view of inspiration must tacitly admit that it is a hypothetical basis of faith because as Ehrman states clearly:

1. If the original manuscripts are inspired, we don't have them.

2. What we do have, while overall reliable and fairly easily examined for error, still leaves some serious questions of textual manipulation by scribes that makes several key passages difficult to stand upon for important doctrines.

This is, in fact, not as great a secret as Ehrman seems to imply throughout his book. There are a great number of books from all backgrounds and degrees of belief that acknowledge these types of issues. Granted, they tend to be more of an academic nature than what Ehrman has attempted to do here. But they are there nonetheless and have been for centuries.

Jefferson's Bible was an early example (though not necessarily intended for distribution at the time) of how people wrestled with this issue. The means of wrestling with them have improved with additional manuscripts discovered (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi to name the better known ones.) Scholarship has improved to where I believe it is safe to say that what we know in this realm today has improved our confidence in most areas of the text.

In fact, the newer translations themselves (The NIV, the NASB etc.), actually have margin notes and some variant readings noted very clearly in just the areas that Ehrman focuses on within his book. That hardly equates to a "cover-up."

In view of this, I think Ehrman somewhat oversteps his points in favor of salesmanship to try and press home his own doubts that have arisen in his personal journey. Most Christians have many tools, books, websites, and Bibles themselves to be introduced to these types of issues (IF they want to be.) This is an issue well within the grasp of the average layman if they should be interested in pursuing it.

There are many conservative scholars with equally distinguished academic backgrounds that match Ehrman's and yet still maintain a higher view of Scripture than he appears to have adopted. I accept that his views are well informed and sincere. I do not accept his conclusion that inspiration of the original text requires equally divine preservation. However, in recognizing that I accept that the onus is on those of my persuasion to provide solid scholarship to demonstrate our case. I believe that is being provided. I would encourage any reading this book to listen to what Ehrman has to say and do some research on what others of a more conservative approach and respect for Scripture have to say as well. In this regard, even Bruce Metzger, Ehrman's mentor to whom he dedicates the book has a somewhat more conservative view and conclusion based on the same criteria.

The primary and most valuable point that I think Ehrman makes in this work, is that there are many Christians in denial either through ignorance or worse, perhaps an unwillingness to face these issues for fear of upsetting their internal house of cards and being forced to admit that there are unanswered questions and room for some intellectual honesty and humility in facing difficult issues related to the Bible.

There are many Christians, unfortunately who prefer denial to honest appraisal. Ehrman very rightly confronts this with his material.

As an evangelical who has retained and maintained his faith in this journey, I haven't found it necessary to resort to denial. There are satisfactory answers to be found. It does, however, require a willingness to adopt some humility and to honestly rethink and modify positions when the facts call for it. That is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing and results in a deeper, more understanding, more relevent and intellectually honest faith that can move and interact within our society and culture without apology. I don't believe God intends for his people to be mental midgets or follow their faith mindlessly.

That having been said, I didn't find the text offensive or threatening for that matter. I think he does a good job of raising the points on the major issues without overly sensationalizing them beyond what I have qualified above. His facts are reasonably sound and accurate, even if they are somewhat selective. His conclusions in places seem to be somewhat hastily arrived at, but I'm willing to give him some latitude due to his goal of making this easily grasped by the average person with no formal training.

Worth the read. Hopefully any reading this as an introduction to the field will not stop here but go on to explore and learn more. Metzger is good, Gordon Fee is good. FF Bruce also has some good material, but there are many others if you want to enter the field more deeply and see some differing persepctives.

Evangelicals, (such as myself) need to read and interact with these types of books and enter the field as participants in the debate rather than naysayers throwing verbal salvos from behind our walls of faith, security and (unfortunately at times) ignorance.

Read it and be introduced into an important field of knowledge.
 

Reviews of Dr. Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, featured on Amazon.com
ABOVE

 



 CreationCrisis.com   |   OriginScience.com   |   Contact