Bart d ehrman .... refutation of his case against the christian faith part 1

In this set of articles i will undertake an examination of a popular author and anti - christian name Bart D Ehrman .. who claims to be a ex - Christian who lost his faith in his younger years .. and now goes by the idea of a self coined phrase "happy agnostic"
In his most popular book "Misquoting Jesus" ... "Jesus Interupted" and the later one Forged ... shows how he believes no one can truly trust in the new testament as it has been changed so severly and radically that it no longer reads as it may have once

In the first mentioned book above "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman makes this claim in the intoduction as what lead down this agnostic path of his :

"a turning point came in his young life when he had an assignment on the book of mark, where he had to exegete a passage .... to which he chose mark 2 :26 .... and had to show how the pasage in mark and the old testament citation was in harmony

saying ... "I had made the argument that the point was not saying abiathar was a high priest at the time but simply mentioned him as one of main person at the time of the high priest"

and this could be the meaning of the passage when it states "when abiathar was a high preist

.... i was sure this argument would be a satisfying one for the professor

but he made a remark on saying "prehaps mark was mistaken" ... this answer etched at me for sometime and i came to the realisation that if there is one, then there could possible be others

Jesus just want to show that the Sabbath was not made for man, but man for the Sabbath .. he refers to an incident in the great king davids life when he and his men were hungry and ate on the Sabbath"

Here is the major thesis of what coursed this "so called Christian" down a darkerned path of spiritual ignorance, this one text which a spiritually ignorant professor made a unneccasary comment based on his subjective feelings .. which has no place in the teaching level, the comment is useful to reveal the liberal agenda that is focused on denying all positive understanding of divine inspiration
but what is more important to note is that according to Ehrmans own words is he had a real in depth answer prepared which we don't get to see and test, but its not a lost at all
for i believe in his snaky comment he provides a glimpse which can be useful here .. note these words in the last sentence ..  he gives us a good example of what some have called a historical anachronism .. by calling david a king in a time when he was not one though we know historically he was due to be come one .. i believe also under the inspiration of the holy spirit peter was guide to speak these words and mark wrote them as such ... but also that Jesus spoke them 

This example is one of many but for the sake of this examination will be the only one visited as i would like to move on to some more interesting points he raises to do with the manuscripts themselves 
As this will be the major focus in this examination

The first point i want to focus on is the following :

"some times scholars guess that there could be a couple hundred thousand variations .. some say 300,000 .. others 400,000 

the way i put it to my pupils is in comparative terms ... there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the new testament"

lets us consider this claim carefully since it is not all bad information ... there are elements of fact in this but there is one problem in this it is what i call spinning the yarn

basically the person tell a truth but conveniently leaves out the important information which puts the full focus on the  reality rather than the a warped understanding

a) there are many variants in the manuscript tradition

b) this "comparative terminology is not displaying the facts of the matter

for example we know there are almost 6000 manuscripts in the Greek line and all together there over 25,000 manuscripts to which these variants play a huge part in

so it is not even dealing with the new testament as we have it .. but the manuscript to which it is based upon

further  when we get into these difference we learn some important distinctions that can really help the matters 

*  spelling and nonsense readings* variants that do not effect the translation *meaningful variants that are not viable* meaningful and viable variantsthese are the four catagories which every vaiant falls under and in most of the case they can be dismissed .. to even bart ehrman has said this much "a majority of these variants do matter for the fact they dont effect or alter any doctrine in any harmful manner"

but for a more thorough understanding of this i will provide some information from a leading textual scholar  Dan Wallace,

1) Spelling and nonsense readings are the vast majority, accounting for at least 75% of all variants. The most common variant is what’s called a movable nu—that’s an ‘n’ at the end of one word before another word that starts with a vowel. We see the same principle in English with the indefinite article: ‘a book,’ ‘an apple.’ These spelling differences are easy for scholars to detect. They really affect nothing.2) The second largest group, changes that can’t be translated and synonyms, also do not affect the meaning of the text. Frequently, the word order in the Greek text is changed from manuscript to manuscript. Yet the word order in Greek is very flexible. For the most part, the only difference is one of emphasis, not meaning.3) The third group is meaningful variants that are not viable. By ‘viable’ I mean a variant that can make a good case for reflecting the wording of the original text. This, the third largest group, even though it involves meaningful variants, has no credibility. For example, in Luke 6:22, the ESV reads, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” But one manuscript from the 10th/11th century (codex 2882) lacks the words “on account of the Son of Man.” That’s a very meaningful variant since it seems to say that a person is blessed when he is persecuted, regardless of his allegiance to Christ. Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier.4) The smallest category by far is the last category: meaningful and viable variants. These comprise less than 1% of all textual variants. Yet, even here, no cardinal belief is at stake. These variants do affect what a particular passage teaches, and thus what the Bible says in that place, but they do not jeopardize essential beliefs.

As believers we should do well to really understand the above information in regards to the textual variation in the manuscripts .. as this will strengthen the truth claim in our professions as Christians .. but it like wise will give us a more wider understanding in the area of textual studies .. but the most important focus in this is the "1 percent" being viable as this reveals to us out of the possible 300,000 variants only a handful actually matter and none effect the doctrines of the faith

The second point i want to focus on is the following: 

 "What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways….There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

here is the next thing which should sound alarm bells to a true christian who has the desire to know what he reads is in fact what the originals .. though as bart  has correctly said we no longer possess them, but the general thought is based on the copies we do possess can give us a very good understand of the fact that we can know the new testament ... we have accurately worked out almost every word to 99.8 % certainty

when it comes down to it barts view is that we can not know anything about any historical event since his view on the text of the new testament .. that being he has the idea that we can not know for sure of what was originally said

and the new testament have far more manuscripts to work with to know what it says .. and there is also anther point in this .. it is the far earliest attested work of history measuring in between 30 -50 years where as any other work of history is 500 - 1000 years more from the original and the first known copy

Note the following interesting point he makes which totally contradicts the thesis of his argumentation in that "we can not know what was actually written in the originals" 

"I have nothing but respect and admiration for him , in addition even though we may have difference of opinion on important and fundamental religious questions, he is a firmly committed christian and I am not.. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT on a number of important historical and CONTEXTUAL QUESTIONS, If he and i were put in a room and were asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS, THERE WOULD BE VERY FEW POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT .. MAYBE ONE OR TWO DOZEN PLACE OUT OF THOUSANDS"

Speaking of his adoration and admiration for his mentor the late Bruce metzgar .. which is a nice thing, but notice his complete 360 % in the position he would take on these matter that of being .. "in agreement" and then "we can get back to the originals with a minor set of place where it may be harder to discern"

the point would be this : "can we get back to the originals with the extant manuscript tradition we have or can we not get back to it "

and this is the same point James R White made a comment in regards to Bart Erhmans view: 

"the new testament is the earliest attested document of antiquity .... (said to J .R White in debate) and the new testament is the most widely documented work of antiquity .... (said to D. B Wallace in debate)  ...... he would have to say if he was honest the NEW TESTAMENT is the most accurately transmitted document of history"

Baring in mind the above two statement the one with his mentor and the ones with the scholar J R White and D B Wallace ... we begin to get the real face of Barts beliefs as a historian and textual critic .. he believes just what has been believed for many years that we do have reliable information and manuscripts to work from and since he has said that he could get back to the originals with some area of disagreement which again is how the textual evidence is seen in every manner

the sensatationalistic face but put on about not known for sure is a deploy just make his cultic followers feel assured, even though his own contradictory remarks show that he himself is the one who ca not be trusted

The third point I want to focus on is the following:

Four such Gospels became most widely used—those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament—but many others were written. We still have some of the others: for example,

Gospels allegedly by Jesus's disciple Philip, his brother Judas Thomas, and his female companion Mary Magdalene. Other Gospels,

including some of the very earliest, have been lost. We know this, for example, from the Gospel of Luke, whose author indicates that in writing his account he consulted "many" predecessors

Here is another interesting point Bart raises as to set forth the thought that some secret council were hiding or not including books, and then chose a set of specific book which agreed with there view point. Having seen this point been raised by all kinds of people from atheists, Mormons  Muslims and many others, but the whole concept lies in what is called a preconceived notion .. speculation, an assumption that something must have happen to all these widely known gospel for them to be not included

What we have to realize is that these other documents called "gospels" which are not reliable based on several factors such as 

a) later language development ... a Valentinian language which came into being around 150 .. but some had suggested that the ones like Thomas and Phillip are dated around 150 -200 ad 

b) the world views between these documents and the true 1st century documents are so vastly different ... the Gnostic document provide us with a historical, non realistic

presenting Jesus as a spirit being and not a true human since all physical matter is evil, spiritual is good

c) people who push these things as possible alternatives are very biblical illiterate in the sense that people do not have any understanding of the biblical facts, or church history 

of which the second reveals that these works were known as sheer fantasies and falsehoods

Now lets move onto another point he raises in these words "We know this, for example, from the Gospel of Luke, whose author indicates that in writing his account he consulted "many" predecessors" 

Note that overarching theme of these Gospels as mentioned above as Gnostic documents as being the one Luke attested too as being the others known, but the problem with this is that Luke was writing to a known person .. in around 58 -59 ad .. and Matthew and mark were known already to Luke

Here is the passage in question

inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ² just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1

We note Luke has taken time to address the fact that which his writing are addressed to can have assurances of what he has been told and has already read, we are told just what these other documents are but to speculate that they are the Gnostic document that had not even been written in this period of time .. but may have only be taught by word of mouth by the heretics 

what if it was copies of Mark and Matthew as these first century document between 40 -55 ad 

secondly these people who were essential to the undertaken of the accounts being written as witnesses .. showing they had first hand knowledge of things regarding Jesus christ ... they knew he exist and was a human like us   

The final point I want to consider is the following

textual criticism involves more than simply determining the original text ..it also entails seeing how the text come to be modified over time. both through scribal slips and through deliberate modification 

the latter, the intentional changes can be highly significant not because it can help us understand what the original author was trying to say... but because they can show something about how the authors texts .. come to be interpreted by the scribes who reproduced them

we can learn something about what these men thought was important  

Here in this statement we have a mixed concoction of thoughts being presented by Bart Ehrman; while he is telling the truth of the establish method of textual criticism. He at the same point is mixing to different methods.

1) the foundational / lower textual criticism which deals with the manuscripts to come to a better understanding of what the original writing would have said ... and on this we can know for a certainty of what 99 . 8 % a fact Bart himself has attested too in many ways like in  the 2nd point. Recall the point Bart made in regards to his mentor and how they would come to an agreement of all most all the text of the new testament 

2) secondary / higher textual criticism which has abandoned the real goals of textual critics .. and has gone to the high speculative and theoretical positions of trying to know what the scribes believed and taught by studying slip ups 

Bart concludes chapter 6 with these interesting words that can be very interpretive of barts position on the text after giving several different theories .. he sums it up like this 

"one of the factor contributing scribes alterations of their texts was their own historical context, christian scribes of the second and third centuries were involved with debates and and disbutes of their day and occasionally these disputes effected the reproduction of the texts over which debate raged. that is, scribes occasionally altered their texts to make them say what they believe to mean"

Note in the above assertion that Bart is paint the picture that events of time which these noble believer may have been aware and involved in ... therefore the reproduction for the text may have been radically effected by such engagements... this is an interesting claim but it lack one thing in which would help barts claim ... real proof 

and this is something barts approach of leaving the text and looking at the scribe(s) back grounds and their personal beliefs 

which only needs to be known as a theoretical approach ... it is based on barts assumptions and not the truth, something he can not know of any longer as an agnostic he does not know what truth is    

And this very point is evidenced by barts work as a whole since he presents too side a) you can not know for sure of what the text states, and b) we can know with a high degree of certainty of the text. 

Of which is seen in one of his interviews 

when asked by the presenter   "so is it true that the we can not trust the bible"

bart ehrman : what are you on about .. the bible is the most accurate work of history and is a 1st century document

We note from this exchange that Bart has two very different personas in play .. the scholar which is seen in the above words, and a  sensationalist who spins the yarn  as most of the above claims are to be recognized  or seen as

if we can establish one fact from this part of the examination it would be that Bart has no regard for the feild he once was apart of since he has no regognition of truth