well thank you very much for that warm
welcome well I I take this topic very
seriously I think it's one of the most
important topics that there is not just
for believing Christians but for for
everyone the New Testament is the most
widely purchased thoroughly studied
highly revered book and history of our
civilization knowing more about where it
came from and how it came down to us as
critical for everyone in our culture
whether they are believers or not
this is the question that I've devoted a
major portion of my adult life to when I
was 22 years old I went off to Princeton
Theological Seminary to study with a
master of Greek manuscripts a man named
Bruce Metzger
I did both my masters and my PhD with
Professor Metzger and in the 30 years
since I have spent a good chunk of
studying the Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament I tell you this because I
want you to know that this is a topic
that is near and dear to my heart and so
I'm glad to have a very serious
discussion about it with being white I
want to begin by talking about how we
got the books of the New Testament how
we actually got the books of the New
Testament this may not be a question
that ever occurred to you because you go
to a bookstore and you buy a New
Testament and it's the same set of books
every time twenty-seven books always in
the same sequence always between
hardcovers are in paperback and every
time you buy a certain translation it's
the same translation no matter where you
buy it if you buy an NIV it doesn't
matter whether you buy it in Palo Alto
if you buy it in Las Vegas if you can't
buy it there if you buy it in us in New
York it's always the same translation no
matter what well it wasn't always that
way because of course before the
invention of printing there was no way
to reap
manuscripts accurately time after time
after time
printing wasn't invented until the
sixteenth century so what was happening
in the fifteen hundred years before that
to the Bible to the New Testament well
I'm going to start by giving an example
of what happened with the Gospel of Mark
we don't know actually if you wrote the
Gospel of Mark but say it was somebody
named Mark we don't know where he was
writing that the tradition is that he
was writing in Rome so let's say Mark
was writing in Rome mark wrote down a
gospel an account of the the life of
Jesus his ministry his death and his
resurrection he probably wrote this
account for his own community
he didn't originally plan that it was
going to become part of the Bible he was
simply writing an account for his
community so that they would know the
things that Jesus said and did an
experience leading up to his death and
resurrection how was this book actually
published well in the ancient world
there was no such thing as publication
the way we think of where if James
writes a book the publisher prints off
several thousand copies and sends it
around a bookstore throughout the
country that's easily done now but in
the ancient world it couldn't be done at
all if you wanted to publish a book it
meant that you put it in circulation
which means you lent it out to somebody
and if they wanted a copy they had to
make a copy the way they made a copy is
by copying it by hand or by having
somebody else copy it by hand there was
no other way to reproduce a book you had
to copy it one chapter one page one
sentence one word one letter at a time
it was a very slow and painstaking
process even if you were professionally
trained to do it the earliest Christians
evidently were not among the
intellectual elites of their day most of
the early Christians as it's true for
most people in the Roman Empire
most Christians were illiterate they
couldn't read or write so who was
copying this copy of the Gospel of Mark
well it'd be whoever who was in his
community say in Rome who was able to
copy a text somebody who is literate
among the Christians presumably this
would be the person who would copy it
for say his own house Church mark maybe
had a community of say ten or twenty
people met in his house church and maybe
across town in Rome Rome a very large
city there is another house Church and
they wanted a copy of the gospel though
somebody copied it what happens when
somebody copies a document by hand
slowly painstakingly one letter at a
time well if you don't know what happens
try it yourself sometime I tell my
students if they want to know what it's
like a copy of text if sit down and copy
the Gospel of Matthew and see how well
you do I can tell you what will happen
if you copy the Gospel of Matthew some
evening you will make mistakes they'll
get time--where your mind will wander
you'll get tired you'll get bored you'll
start thinking of something else and
you'll make mistakes the first person
who copied the Gospel of Mark no doubt
made mistakes now how was Mark copied
after that well the original would have
been copied but then the copy would have
been copied and the problem is when
somebody copied the copy they not only
copied the original words they copied
the mistakes that the first scribe in
may and they made their own mistakes
what happened then when somebody came
along and copied that second copy that
person replicated the mistakes of both
of his rep of its predecessors and made
his own mistakes and copies were made
week after week year after year decade
after decade copies were being made of
the Gospel of Mark copies of the
original in which every time a new copy
was made the mistakes of the
predecessors were repeated unless
somebody had the bright idea of
correcting the mistakes now it's not
always clear with a scribe would know
where there had been a mistake made it
may be that in places in fact the scribe
who's copying something didn't just make
a grammatical error or sort of fall
asleep for a second and leave out a word
but maybe he actually changed the text
because he thought it would make better
sense if you changed to say this
instead of that well if that's what he
did how would his successor the next
copy is know that he had made the change
only if he had the original to compare
it with but if he didn't have the
original Barrett wit then he wouldn't
know that a mistake had been made in
many places and so he would copy that
mistake but suppose he thought her
mistake had been made but he didn't have
the original to compare it with how
would he correct mistake he would take
his best guess at what probably the
original said but what if he guessed
wrong it's possible that scribes
corrected mistakes incorrectly and then
you've got three problems at that place
you've got the original text you've got
the original mistake and you've got a
mistaken correction of the original
mistake and so it goes for week after
week after year after decade on and on
on copies made of copies made of copies
this went on for a very long time and
eventually the original Gospel of Mark
was lost we no longer have the original
Gospel of Mark and we don't have the
original copy of mark and we don't have
a copy of the copy of the Mar of Mark or
a copy of the copy of the copy of Mark
now what I'm what I'm telling you now is
not sort of slanted information I'm
telling you facts we don't have anything
like the original of Mark's Gospel or an
early copy of Mark's Gospel the first
copy we have of Mark's Gospel is a text
that is called p45 it's called p45
because it was the 45th papyrus
manuscript to be discovered papyrus is
the ancient equivalent of paper so we
use paper to write on in the ancient
world they used papyrus to write on the
oldest manuscript we have of the New
Testament happened to be written on
papyrus the 45th papyrus manuscript to
be discovered it's called p45 and it
contains a copy of the Gospel of Mark
that dates from around the Year 220 now
I'm not sure what mark was written some
people think is written in the Year 50
in the year 60 in the year 70 I think my
own opinion is written sometime around
to your 70 if that's the case then our
first surviving copy of Mark was
produced a hundred and fifty years after
the original not from the original
but from copies of the copies of the
copies of the copies of the copies of
the copies of the original we don't have
anything earlier for the Gospel of Mark
this is what p45 looks like this is one
page of p45 p45 has has portions of
eight chapters of mark
so this earliest copy of mark doesn't
have the whole thing it has portions of
half of the chapters of mark koep this
is the earliest as you can see it's very
fragmentary because it was discovered in
Egypt and then eroded over the years
it's written in Greek the original
language of the gospel mark is the
original language of all the books of
the New Testament you can see probably
get a good sense here there's rather
hard to read this because they don't put
any separation between paragraphs or
between sentences or even between words
they all run together one after the
other making it very easy indeed to make
mistakes when you're trying to copy one
of these texts this then is the oldest
copy of Mark p45 from around the Year
220 our next earliest copy comes from
the 4th century our first complete copy
of the gospel mark from beginning to end
from the first verse to the last verse a
copy of the New Testament has the entire
mark is from 300 years after Mark was
copied originally that's the situation
we're facing when we're dealing with the
manuscripts of the New Testament not
just mark but all of our manuscripts
we're in the same boat we don't have any
of the originals we don't have any
original copies we don't have any
original copies of the copies we have
copies that were made many decades in
most cases many centuries later and we
know that there were changes made how do
we know because all of the copies differ
from one another let me give you some
statistics how many copies do
we have well it's a little bit hard to
say exactly how many copies we have of
the New Testament but we have something
like five thousand five hundred copies
in Greek the language in which they were
originally written plus we have
thousands of copies in Latin and we have
copies in other ancient languages that
people were textual scholars learn when
they're sort of inter learning dead
languages they learn Syriac and they
learn coptic and they learn gothic and
there were old Church Slavonic and
you've got manuscripts in all these
languages but in Greek the original
language of the New Testament there are
five thousand five hundred or so
manuscripts from from complete
manuscripts to fragmentary copies five
thousand five so that's a lot that's a
lot that's more than you have for any
other book in the ancient world so that
part's good that's the good news is we
have so many of these things the bad
news is that none of them goes back to
the original and all of them have
mistakes in them what can we say about
the ages of our copies well the oldest
copy we have is another papyrus p52 it's
called because it was the fifty second
papyrus found this is a little scrap of
the Gospel of John it looks rather large
here on the screen in fact it's the size
of a credit card it's a size of a credit
card written on front and back which is
important to know because since it's
written a front back it means it came
from not from a scroll the way most
people wrote ancient books but from a
codex from like our books where you
write on both sides of the both sides of
the page and bind them together into a
book this it's a little bit hard to
today to date a fragment like this
experts in ancient handwriting who are
called paleographic who do this for a
living
Haley ographers date this thing probably
to the first half of the second century
so maybe 30 40 50 years after John was
originally written plus or minus 25
years don't really know exactly when
something like this is written but maybe
one 125 plus or minus 25 years this is
from it's a very important piece that
this piece whoops it's very important
piece that's P 452 it's a it's an
account of the trial before Pilate in
the Gospel of John with a few words
from the trial here at the beginning and
on the backside of you to flip this over
you'd see some more words and so this is
a very interesting little fragment but
in Fort and it's the earliest thing we
have of any Frank of anything from the
New Testament from maybe 30 or 40 years
after John was originally written most
of our manuscripts are nowhere near that
early 94% of the manuscripts that we now
have Greek manuscripts date from after
the ninth century
the ninth century well after the ninth
century so eight hundred nine hundred
years after the originals is when we
start getting lots of copies so you'll
sometimes have people tell you that the
New Testament is the best attested book
from the ancient world
and they're absolutely right it is
absolutely the best attested book in the
ancient world
the problem is the attestation to the
book comes centuries after it was
originally written many many many
centuries after originally written is
when most of our manuscripts come from
well okay so we have all these
manuscripts how many mistakes are found
in those manuscripts exactly well during
the Middle Ages people didn't think much
about this I mean scribes who were
copying the text realized that they were
you know their predecessors had made
mistakes and they occasionally would
would notice mistakes and but they
didn't think much of it
people didn't start thinking much of it
until the invention of printing when
printers had to actually print a verse
and had to decide what words to print in
the verse and the problem is if they had
different manuscripts with different
words in each verse then they had to
decide when which words are the original
words and which words do we want want to
print how do we know because we have all
these managed groups that have
differences in them and so it wasn't
until the invention of printing that
people started thinking about this
seriously and it didn't become a real
issue until almost exactly three hundred
years ago here 1707 in the year 1707
there was a scholar at oxford named john
mill unrelated to John Stuart Mill the
Victorians some of you know about this
john mill was a textual scholar of the
new testament he spent 30 years of his
life studying the manuscripts of the New
Testament he had at he had access to
about a hundred manuscripts of the New
Testament and he studied them thoroughly
and then he put together a book he
called it the novum Testament in Greek
the Greek New Testament of john mill in
1707 and what he did in this Greek New
Testaments he printed a line or two of
the Greek of a Greek verses from the New
Testament Matthew chapter 1 verse 1
verse 2 verse 3 but then at the bottom
of the page he listed places where the
manuscript had differences for every
verse to the shock and dismay of his
readers John Mills Greek New Testament
listed 30 thousand places where the
manuscripts disagreed with one another
thirty thousand places of variation
among the manuscripts some of his
detractors were quite upset by this and
claimed that John middle had done had
published his novum test and breaky in
order to render the text of the New
Testament uncertain they thought this
was some kind of demonic plot on the
part of a university professor but you
know his supporters pointed out he
hadn't actually invented these thirty
thousand places of variation because he
just noticed that they exist as they do
exist in our manuscripts well that was
that was that was three hundred years
ago based on a study of one hundred
manuscripts now we have over five
thousand five hundred manuscripts which
have been studied quite assiduously by
scholars although they have not been
thoroughly studied yet what can we say
about the number of variations
today among our manuscripts of the New
Testament the reality is we don't know
how many changes scribes made in their
text of the New Testament we don't know
because nobody has been able to add up
all the numbers yet even with the
development of computer technology we
don't know how many differences there
are there are scholars who will tell you
that there
300,000 differences scholars who will
tell you there are 400,000 differences
people will come up with all sorts of
numbers but the reality is we don't know
we can put it in relative terms there
are more differences in our manuscripts
than there are words in the New
Testament well that's a lot of
differences probably several hundred
thousand so that is the situation that
we face well look what kind of changes
are there I mean what are these
differences do they really matter for
anything let me start off by saying
quite emphatically most of these
differences that I'm talking about don't
matter for a thing they absolutely don't
matter many of them you cannot translate
from Greek into English so you have to
do you have two differences and there's
no way to translate the difference many
of the changes tell us nothing more than
that scribes in the ancient world could
spell no better than my students can
today and scribes of course you didn't
have spellcheck those of you who are
students I've got to tell you I don't
understand why students hand in papers
with misspelled words I mean the
computer tells you you misspelled it I
mean how hard can it get scribes they
didn't have computers telling you you
know with red marks that this is
misspelled and scribes by the way didn't
even have dictionaries and in many
places they didn't eat most of the time
scribes didn't care how things were
spelled the reason you know that they
didn't care is because sometimes you
have a verse they'll have the same word
two or three times and a scribe will
spell it three different ways so well
those are all differences but they don't
matter for any most of the time spelling
differences don't matter for anything
those kinds of differences I would call
accidental differences accidental
changes where scribes simply messes
something up he makes a mistake of some
kind for example a misspelling or
another kind of accidental mistake yeah
this didn't come through on the slide
here
and in Luke chapter 12 alright I'll do
that in Luke chapter 12 verses 8 & 9
Jesus says whoever acknowledges me for
people with the Son of Man will
acknowledge before the angels of God
whoever denies me before humans will
will be denied before the angels of God
and everyone who speaks a word against
the Son now the way this slide was
supposed to work is that support God was
supposed to be up here and this word God
was supposed to be up here because I'm
trying to illustrate something which is
that these these words and the same way
from the two lines what happens if the
scribe is copying this and he's copying
this and he copies these words before
the angels of God and so he's writing
down these words here he writes down the
words before the angels of God he looks
back at the manuscript he's copping and
he's just written down this word before
the angels of God but his eyes alight on
this sequence of words before the angels
of God and he keeps writing if he does
that then the next thing he writes is
and everyone who speaks a word against
the Sun in other words he leaves out
this line which in fact is what happened
in a number of manuscripts that middle
line is left out because scribes there I
skip from the same words at the end of
one line to the same words at the end of
the next line now for those of you who
are interested in such things I see some
of your taking notes this kind of
mistake actually has a name the the idea
of words ending in the same way is
called home Latoya Tong and when you're
I skips from one line to another it's
called pair of lapses so this kind of
mistake is called pair of lapses
occasion by homely I tell you Todd as I
tell my students they don't remember it
either there are other kinds of
accidental mistakes scribe made serious
blunders in their manuscripts sometimes
scribes would leave out not just a word
or line sometimes they'd leave out a
whole half a page sometimes they'd leave
out an entire page sometimes they would
do the most amazing things mistakes that
you can't believe they would make they
made we have these in our manuscripts
let me emphasize I'm not suggesting that
scribes change
their manuscripts I'm not I'm not
concluding that they changed I'm telling
you they change their manuscript and
it's a fact because we have the
manuscripts and all the manuscripts
differ from one another in sometimes in
very small ways sometimes in very big
ways these are these changes I've been
telling you up to this point or what I'm
calling accidental changes but there are
also changes that look at least like
they remain intentionally the scribes
aren't around for us to ask what their
intentions were but but there are some
changes that look like they're really
hard to explain it's just by a scribe
being too sleepy or something let me
just give you a few examples of changes
that look like we're probably
intentionally made these are either
rather more serious than accidental
changes of something like spelling
virtually all scholars agree today that
one of the most famous stories of the
New Testament was in fact inserted by
scribes that it wasn't originally found
in the New Testament it's the story
found in the Gospel of John chapter 7
and 8 the famous story of the woman
taken in adultery where the the Jewish
leaders dragged his woman before Jesus
and set a trap for him they say this
woman's been caught in the act of
adultery the law of Moses says we're
supposed to stone a person like this
what do you say well this is a trap
because if Jesus says we yes donar then
he's violating his teachings of love and
mercy but if he says no forgive her then
he's breaking the law of Moses so what's
it going to be well Jesus Stoops down on
the ground and as he has a way of
getting out of these traps in the New
Testament so he Stoops down the ground
starts riding on the ground he looked up
and it says let the woman without sin
among you be the first to cast a stone
at her and that causes everybody to
recognize their own guilt they leave one
by one
until he looks up there's nobody left
there and Jesus says to the woman's
there's no one left here to condemn you
she says no Lord no one he says neither
do i condemn you go and sin no more this
is a beautiful story filled with with
pathos want to absolutely wanted we know
it's one of the best stories in the new
test
because it's an every Jesus movie ever
made even Mel Gibson couldn't leave it
out
even though The Passion of the Christ is
really about Jesus last hours he has a
flashback to this event because you have
to have this you have to have this scene
in the movie if you make a movie movie
about Jesus and so you have a woman
taking an adultery even in Mel Gibson's
version this has been a very popular
account obviously in a very moving
account unfortunately it was not
originally in the New Testament in your
New Testament there will probably be
brackets placed around the story with a
footnote indicating that it's not found
in the oldest oldest authorities in fact
it's not found in the oldest authorities
and there are all sorts of reasons that
if I had half an hour I would give you
4y scholars for four centuries have
known that as great as the story is it
did not originally belong in the Gospel
of John or in fact in any other passage
of the New Testament a second example
the last twelve verses of mark mark is
for me mark mark mark is my favorite
gospel mark doesn't beat you over the
head with this theology mark is very
subtle and very very smart and how he
constructs his gospel at the end of his
gospel Jesus has been betrayed he has
been denied he has been put on trial
before Pontius Pilate he's been killed
executed by crucifixion he's been buried
and on the third day the women go to the
tomb and he's not there but there's a
man in the tomb and the man says you're
looking for Jesus of Nazareth he's not
here go tell Peter and the disciples
that he'll meet them in Galilee and then
we're told mark chapter 16 verse 8 the
women fled from the tomb and they didn't
say anything to anyone for they were
afraid period it ends there that's the
last thing that happens in mark the
women don't tell anybody and you think
whoa wait a second how could they not
tell anybody
well scribes who copied the Gospel of
Mark
copied the gospel mark got to that point
where it says women didn't tell anybody
and the scribes said exactly the same
thing whoa how could they not tell
anybody and the scribe added 12 verses
where the women do go tell the disciples
disciples do go to Galilee they do meet
Jesus and Jesus tells them to go make
disciples that people be baptized in his
name if people who baptized in his name
will speak and forth will speak in
tongues that they will they will be able
to handle snakes they would drink poison
and it won't harm them these are the
verses that are are very important my
part of the country of this is my part
of the South where we have the
Appalachian snake handlers they get
their theology from these last 12 verses
of Mark I've often thought that in the
ha and the ambulance on the way to the
hospital maybe one of the paramedics
ought to say you know actually those
verses weren't originally in the Gospel
of Mark but but anyway that's that's
where the that's where the idea of
handling snakes comes from those verses
not originally in the Gospel of Mark not
found in our oldest and best manuscripts
and again lots of reasons that scholars
have known for a very long time they
don't don't belong there I think on
these two points I'll be very surprised
James disagrees with this because this
is the sort of thing that's textual
scholars have known for a very long time
a couple of other quick examples before
I close one of Jesus most memorable
lines is in Luke chapter 23 verse 34
it's found only Luke he's being nailed
to the cross and Jesus praise Father
forgive them for they don't know what
they're doing but the verses are not
found in some of our oldest and best
manuscripts were the was that verse
originally did Jesus originally say the
prayer or not it depends which
manuscript you read so to my final
example Matthew chapter 24 Jesus is
talking about that should be chapter 25
I think Matthew chapter 25 Jesus is
talking about the end time 25 or 24 24
we're going to say 24 this may be a
scribal mistake but we think it was 24
in Matthew chapter 24 Jesus is telling
his disciples what's going to happen at
the end of
time and then he says that no one knows
that they are the hour when these things
will take place not the angels in heaven
not even the Sun in other words not even
the Son of God knows when these things
will take place scribes copying has
found this rather confusing how could
the Son of God not know when the end is
going to come how did scribe deal with
that problem they took out the words in
a number of manuscripts the words are
omitted what did Jesus say that or not
well depends Matthew's Gospel it depends
which manuscript you read let me come to
a very quick conclusion do we have a
reliable text of the New Testament are
there places where the Bible missed
quotes Jesus the short answer is there
is no way to tell we don't have the
originals or the original copies or
copies of the copies there are passages
that scholars continue to debate is this
the original text or not and there are
some passages where we will never know
the answer thank you
good evening and welcome I wish to thank
you all for coming this evening and I
especially thank dr. airman for being
with us this evening as well we gathered
to discuss a vitally important topic can
we trust the New Testament we possess
today accurately reflects what was
written nearly 2,000 years ago
does the Bible misquote Jesus few topics
are more important more central than
this one less than a year ago at the
Greer heard forum in Louisiana an
audience participant asked Bart Ehrman
wouldn't want the most important reasons
to study New Testament textual critisism
need to defend its integrity against
critics like you dr. Ehrman responded
wryly good luck well I'm a good
Calvinist and I don't believe in luck
but let's dive in anyway dr. Ehrman has
already laid out his case for us I would
like to focus upon the key issues he
presents by quoting him from a recent
radio debate he did with Peter Williams
of Cambridge University dr. Ehrman seem
very intent upon making sure this
particular statement made it into the
record right at the end of the program
he said my book isn't questioning at all
whether God is true or not the question
is well the New Testament can give us
access to this truth of God and my
question is how can it do so if we don't
know what words were in the scriptures
and the reality is there are places what
we don't know what the New Testament
books originally said so if we don't
know what they said how can they be
authoritative that strikes me as a
pressing question one that eventually
led me away from my beliefs in the
inspiration of the scripture
interviewing the Bible as still a
terrific important and valuable book but
not as delivering the words of God now
these words echo with dr. Ehrman said in
a radio interview in October of 2007 I
thought at one time the God had inspired
the very words the Bible we actually
have thousands of manuscripts the New
Testament in the original Greek language
but most of the copies are hundreds of
years after the original z' and they all
have differences in them these thousands
of manuscripts have hundreds of
thousands of differences among them and
after a while I started thinking that it
didn't make much sense to say the God
had inspired the words the text since it
was pretty obvious to me that he hadn't
preserved the words the text because
there are places where we don't know
what the text originally said so it
started making less sense
to me to think that God had inspired the
words because if he had done the miracle
of inspiring the words in the first
place then it seemed like he would have
performed the miracle of preserving the
words after he had inspired them he
obviously had preserved them because we
didn't have them and that made me then
doubt the doctrine of inspiration we
need to understand this evening that as
dr. Ehrman has stated over and over
again there isn't anything really new in
his book misquoting Jesus any person
with sufficient interest and vail
ability of scholarship has known about
the factual issues he raises all along
but it is the conclusion dr. Ehrman
reaches that is unusual
unlike Tischendorf Bengal Warfield
Carson Silva or Wallace all of whom were
or are fully conversant with the entire
range of New Testament readings dr.
Ehrman has found this information
irreconcilable with evangelical faith
part of his reasoning flows from his
assertion that particular particular
textual variants changed the entire
meaning of books the Bible he has said
did Jesus get angry at a leper who
wanted to be healed it depends on which
manuscript to read did he die apart from
God it depends on which manuscript you
read does the New Testaments
specifically refer to the doctrine of
the Trinity it depends on which
manuscript you read did Jesus confront
this woman taken in adultery it depends
on which manuscript you read so let's
summarize the argument this evening we
have been told there are more textual
variants in a New Testament than there
are words in a New Testament that is
true there are places where we do not
know what the New Testament regionally
said flows from that argument and
therefore the New Testament cannot be
the authoritative Word of God
I would like to offer a faithful
response to dr. Ehrman's position this
evening given first of all that there
are as of November of 2008 five thousand
seven hundred and fifty-two catalogued
and written New Testament manuscripts
and given that there are approximately
four hundred thousand textual variants
amongst these Greek manuscripts leaving
off the Latin Coptic Syriac etc
graphically we can see the situation as
presented by dr. Ehrman like this sadly
for the majority of those who hear these
numbers or see a graph like this it is
assumed that this
means that there are three options for
every single word in the New Testament
this is the conclusion of many atheists
and Muslims with whom I've had dialogue
but is this the case surely not the
repetition of the bear fact there are
more variants in the New Testament than
there are words in the New Testament
without proper historical context is
grossly misleading the fact is that the
vast majority of these variants are
utterly irrelevant to the proper
understanding and translation of the
text let's know the truth of the matter
the more manuscripts you have the more
variants you will have amongst them if
you only have a small number of
manuscripts you have fewer variants you
likewise have less certainty of the
original readings these go hand in hand
obviously having manuscripts coming from
different areas at different times
yet all testifying to the same text is
strong evidence that you possess the
document in its original form the more
manuscripts you have and the earlier
they are is important the fewer
manuscripts you have the higher
possibility of major emendation editing
and corruption the New Testament has
more manuscripts than any other work of
antiquity approximately 1.3 million
pages of handwritten text so while at
first glance the number of variants
intimates a horribly corrupt textual
tradition this is not the case instead
when we recognize that the vast majority
of variants are simply meaningless they
are as noted spelling differences such
as whether you spell John with one new
or 2news and especially the concept of
the moveable knew the bane of the
existence of the first-year Greek
student and the scribe alike it seems
the actual number of meaningful textual
variants the New Testament presents a
very different picture here we see a
more meaningful comparison that of the
number of words in New Testament in
comparison with the variants that
actually impact the meaning of the text
and when you then add viability in that
is whether these variants have a chance
to be original the situation changes
even more perhaps a different view will
help illustrate
relationship a little bit better sadly
this is probably not what most people
have in mind when they hear modern
critics on NPR assuring us that the New
Testament is hopelessly corrupted now
let's look a little closer at the kinds
of variants that we are talking about as
we noted the vast majority of the
variants are non meaningful they simply
cannot be translated from Greek into
English or any other language for that
matter they do not impact the meaning of
the text next we have non viable
variants that is there is simply no
possibility that this variant was
original a particular spelling error in
a 15th century manuscript that otherwise
is pretty much nondescript doesn't
really have much of a chance of being
the original reading of the New
Testament but then we have those
variants that are meaningful and viable
they change the meaning of the text and
they could possibly be original they
have a sufficient manuscript attestation
of these we have scribal errors and
scribal errors as human beings we make
certain kinds of errors that can be
identified in catalog these include
errors of sight such as home wait Elliot
on which dr. Ehrman rectory free to
refer to confusing words with similar
endings as well as errors of hearing in
cases when the original is being read in
a scriptorium then we have
harmonizations whenever you have
parallel accounts in a New Testament
such as the synoptic Gospels or between
Ephesians and Colossians where you have
similar materials it was very common for
the scribes to harmonize either
purposely or simply because they knew
the other text better and it was a
mistake of the mind and then we have
purposeful changes the majority of these
are innocent as well with a scribe
thinking there is an error in the text
but being himself ignorant of the
backgrounds and hence making a mistake
on his own there are about 1500 to 2,000
viable meaningful textual variants that
must be examined carefully comprising
may be at most one percent of the entire
text in the New Testament of these
historically scholars have believed the
vast majority are scribal errors of
sight
hearing let me quote one scholar and
this most of these differences are
completely immaterial and insignificant
in fact most the change is found our
early Christian manuscripts have nothing
to do with theology or ideology far and
away the most changes the result of
mistakes pure and simple slips the pan
accidental omissions inadvertent
additions misspelled words blunders of
one sort or another
when scribes made intentional changes
sometimes their motives were as pure as
the driven snow and so we must rest
content knowing - getting back to the
earliest attainable version is the best
we can do whether or not we have reached
back to the original text the oldest
form the text is no doubt closely very
closely related to what the author
originally wrote and so does the basis
for our interpretation of his teaching
the gentleman that I'm quoting is Bart
Ehrman in misquoting Jesus now one of
the assertion that the text of the New
Testament was corrupted before our
earliest manuscript evidence we have a
dozen manuscripts within the first 100
years after the writing of the New
Testament all are fragmentary but grand
total they represent a majority of the
books of New Testament and about four
tenths of the text of the New Testament
we have more than 120 manuscripts within
the first 300 years now a key fact must
be kept in mind regarding the new
testament manuscript written is the
existence of multiple lines of
transmission let's illustrate what we
mean the earliest manuscripts in our
possession demonstrate the existence not
of a single line of corrupt transmission
but multiple lines of transmission of
varying accuracy many of these lines
intersect and cross defying easy
identification but the important thing
to remember is that multiple lines are a
good thing they ensure a healthy
manuscript tradition that is not under
the control of any central editing
process one of the examples often noted
relating the early transmission of the
text is a relationship between this
manuscript p75 from around ad 175 and
this manuscript Codex Vaticanus from 80
325 these two manuscripts are clearly
very closely related in their tack
indeed they may be more alike than any
other two ancient manuscripts in the
portions where Vaticanus contains the
same sections of Scripture as p75
Vaticanus is a much larger manuscript
obviously but remember 150 years
separates the copy of these two
manuscripts and yet we know that
Vaticanus is not a copy of P 75 for it
actually contains readings that are
earlier than some in P 75 this means we
have a very clean very accurate line of
transmission illustrated by these two
texts that goes back to the very
earliest part of the second century
itself what this illustrates needs to be
kept in mind the burden of proof lies
upon the skeptic who asserts corruption
of the primitive New Testament text
since the extant manuscripts demonstrate
multiple lines of independent
transmission the skeptic must explain
how the New Testament texts can appear
in history by a multiple lines of
transmission and yet each line presents
the same text yet without any
controlling authority as time is short
let us now compare the two extremes of
the complete manuscript spectrum to see
just how wide the range of readings
really is the Byzantine text platform
would be considered the right side of
the spectrum while the Westcott port
text of 1881 would be on the left side
those of you familiar with these issues
the Byzantine versus Alexandrian text
types what happens when we ask a
computer to mark out the differences
between the two ends the spectrum of the
manuscript tradition for us now please
keep in mind we are looking here at
printed text not manuscripts and this is
not a comparison of textual variants but
of representative collations of the two
ends of the manuscript spectrum here we
have Hebrews chapter 4 verses 9 through
15 there is exactly one difference
between the two ends of the spectrum at
this point here is hebrews chapter 6
verse 15 through chapter 7 verse 3 there
are no differences between the two ends
of the spectrum
here's blasians chapter 1 verses 6
through 15 here we have to and the verb
form there we'll see here in a moment ox
you put up the textual data for that is
a pretty messy textual variant but as
you can see the vast majority of the
text has no variation between these two
ends the spectrum now
the Gospels we have 3,500 copies of the
5750 to 3,500 or gospel collections so
they get copied a whole lot more isn't
there give you a whole lot more there
well there can be here's Mark chapter 5
verses 25 to 36 and yet notice even here
where you have these two words here you
loose the difference between youth loose
and youth that owes which is not exactly
going to change the meaning of the text
whatsoever in fact if you tally up the
total of differences between the
majority text which of course is
Byzantine in nature and the critical
text and that's Gian United Bible
societies types you would find just
under 6600 differences or a total of 95
percent plus agreement at the widest
point in the spectrum but are there not
some very challenging difficult variants
certainly there are I just mentioned
this one here's a pretty messy very
Galatians chapter 1 verse 8 and here's
the textual data provided to you and
there are six different readings for
this particular verb 6 different ways to
read it yet even here all the difference
in translation would be whether you say
proclaim to you or just proclaim and
what tends the verb you use that's all
the difference these variations make at
this particular point in time it is
vital to understand a basic truth about
the manuscript tradition of the New
Testament to quote Curt and Barbara
Allen the transmission of the New
Testament textual tradition is
characterized by an extremely impressive
degree of tenacity once a reading occurs
it will persist with obstinacy it is
precisely the overwhelming mass the New
Testament textual tradition which
provides an assurance of certainty in
establishing the original text
basically what this means is that once a
reading appears in two manuscripts it
stays there that includes scribal errors
and even nonsense errors why would this
be a good thing because of what it means
on the other side the original readings
are still in the manuscript tradition
this is key when we have a variant with
three possibilities a B and C we do not
have to worry about D none of the above
there is every reason to believe that
our problem is not having 95% of what
was originally written but instead
having 101 percent as Rob Bowman has put
it is like having a thousand piece
jigsaw puzzle but you have one thousand
and ten pieces in the box the task is
weeding out the extra the originals are
there this is important to emphasize the
light of dr. Ehrman's repeated assertion
that we don't know what the original New
Testament said I would like dr. Ehrman
to explain this assertion is he saying
that he is willing to demonstrate that
there are variants of New Testament
where none of the exit readings could
possibly be original or is he applying
the impossible standard of absolute
certainty on every single variant which
would require absolute perfection of
copying which would mean of course that
scripture could not even have been
revealed until at least the printing
press or more likely the photocopier we
quoted dr. Ehrman's speaking of the
miracle of inspiration requiring the
miracle of preservation
I would like to assert that the issue is
not if God preserved his word but how
dr. Ehrman seems to have concluded many
years ago that preservation require
perfection of copying something not seen
in any ancient document but is this the
only way or even the best way to
preserve Scripture ironically the idea
of a single perfectly preserved version
is indeed a very popular concept amongst
Muslims this is in fact their view of
the Quran that it has never been the
view of informed Christianity in fact
the Islamic assertion of a single
preserved version leads the inevitable
question of those who produced it such
as booth mom the third colleague who
burned the sources that he used but if
preservation is not to be found in a
single manuscript tradition with no
variants how then has the text been
preserved it has been preserved as the
very mechanism that produce the majority
of the text
variants the rapid uncontrolled
widespread explosion of manuscripts
during the early centuries of the
Christian era let's look at how it
happened
the initial Gospels and epistles the New
Testament were written at various places
at various times some were written for
distribution within the community such
as the Gospels and others were epistles
sent to specific locations then copies
would be made and sent elsewhere often
Christians traveling from one place to
another would encounter a book they had
not heard of before and hence would make
a copy to bring back their own
fellowship and though a graphic that
would represent how many different lines
of transmission there were and how often
they were interconnected would rapidly
become useless due to the number of
manuscripts that would be on the screen
the fact of that complex history of
transmission should be kept in mind over
time single books would be gathered into
collections this was especially true of
the Gospels and the epistles of Paul
hence we have P 75 and P 66 gospel
collections in P 46 containing the
epistles of Paul all dating from the
middle to the end of the second century
these collections would then come
together until finally after the Peace
of the church in 313 you could have
entire copies of the scriptures such as
we find in Codex Ani Atticus and codex
Vaticanus but the important point to
note is the multi Folk ality of this
process multiple authors writing at
multiple times to multiple audiences
produced a text that appears in history
already displaying multiple lines of
transmission this results in the textual
variants we must study but it also
results and illustrates something else
there was never a time when any one man
or group of men had control the text of
the New Testament there was never a
Christian with mom all assertions
regarding adding doctrines changing
theology removing teachings etc are
without merit the Christian church was a
persecuted minority without power to
enforce a uniform textual transmission
as in Islam textual variation
then is an artifact of the method used
to preserve the text as an entire
textual tradition the relatively small
amount of meaningful variation is a
small price to pay to avoid the
impossible position of having to defend
an edited controlled text that can make
no claim to representing the original
this has surely been the primary
viewpoint of Christian scholars for
centuries and as such the mere presence
of textual variation does not
substantiate dr. Ehrman's repeated
assertion that we do not know what the
New Testament originally said perfection
of transmission is not relevant to the
historical reality of the New Testament
I believe the evangelistic command of
Christ contained the Gospels was taken
seriously by the church hence the church
wanted the message of Christ to go out
into all the world and quickly the
result was that the Scriptures that the
church treasure would likewise be
distributed far and wide not in a
controlled fashion
the idea of paralleling the Christian
scriptures was say the 10th century
mazarites who were not in any way trying
to distribute their scriptures all
around the world is utterly fallacious
the method of preservation would have to
match the purpose of the early church
and the idea of having a controlled non
distributed ngayon to photocopy text
flies in the face of the reality of the
early church time precludes a full
demonstration of the fact that the New
Testament manuscript written is deeper
wider and earlier than any other
relevant work of antiquity the worst
attested New Testament book revelation
has earlier fuller attestation than any
other work of its day including
Suetonius Tacitus Josephus Pliny etc in
fact while we have fragments that you
test from the date within decades the
original writings the average classical
work has a 500 year gap between its
writing and its first extant manuscript
evidence the New Testament as a whole
has thousands of times the documentary
evidence as the average classical work
and consider how often you hear any
skeptic noting the horrific textual
foundation of such works as the Gospel
of Thomas not only from a single Coptic
manuscript and some Greek fragments why
do you not hear a constant drumbeat of
weed
have any idea what the Gospel of Thomas
actually said at least with the Gospel
of Thomas that would be quite probable
since we have such scant textual
evidence for it and there are tremendous
differences between the Greek fragments
and the single Coptic manuscript what
about the claim that textual variants
change the entire message of the book
dr. Ehrman says that seems to say that
if we read Argos theis angry at mark 141
that this will somehow change the entire
Gospel of Mark yet as urban himself
notes Jesus's treatment of the man is
consistent with such a reading and it is
not the only time in mark when Jesus
shows his true humanity through anger
such as mark 3:5 and 1014 likewise does
whether he read by the grace of God or
apart from God or is theö
in a sub clause and Hebrews 2:9 changed
the entire message of the Epistle of the
Hebrews once occur once again Erman has
argued that apart from God is consistent
with the theology of Hebrews to begin
with and I agree so how can the variant
itself change the entire message of the
book of Hebrews most Christians have
never had the privilege of studying the
textual history of the scriptures from
my first days in Greek class I have been
fascinated by the field the irony of our
encounter this evening is that you have
two speakers who have both examined the
same data and yet come to polar opposite
conclusions one sees the end of faith
the other it's very foundation p52 is
one of the earliest fragments we possess
the New Testament dr. Ehrman showed it
to you I have a tire that both sides
fully readable part of I want you to
notice right here see okay good
when it was first identified last
century was sent to four papper ologist
three of the four dated as early as 100
as late as 150 the fourth placed it in
the late 90s it contains portions of
John 18 31 through 33 and 37 to 38 which
is ironic both because that is where
Jesus is speaking about truth with
Pilate as well as the fact that Germans
scholarship was convinced for a long
time that John was not written until
about AD 170
but here we have an ancient text which
if it was as early as 100 could
conceivably be a first or
second-generation copy of the original
which surely would have still been
around in its day one way or the other
here we see how the text would have
flowed around this particular fragment
these words then were copied and
recopied
over the centuries here is how they
appear around the Year 400 in codex
Alexandre nos they are the same words
the same message the same story three
centuries later the unsealed text the
first eight centuries gave way the
miniscule form and here from the 12th
century we have the same text the same
words the same message being transmitted
faithfully finally in 1516 the first
printed and published Greek New
Testament appeared the work of
Desiderius Erasmus here in his third
edition the same words found in P 52 up
here on the sacred page we can move from
there to the 19th century and the more
modern critical text of tribulus finally
on to the 20th century and the 21st
edition of the Nessie all in text 1949
this scan came from the text of my
father who used it to study Greek under
Kenneth wheezed and Luga Bible Institute
in Chicago and finally on into the
modern Nestle Ahlan text in electronic
format from the stuttgart electronic
study bible replete with textual notes
and sigla same words same message one
text written during a time of
persecution upon papyri 1,900 years ago
most probably at the risk of the scribes
life transmitted through the years
faithfully to our very day the story of
P 52 could be repeated over and over in
great treasures of history that
testified the ancient transmission of
the words the apostles include tiny
scraps like these fragments from P 60
from the Gospel of John or this portion
of P 20 from the Epistle of James
chapters 2 & 3
or this page I saw myself a number of
years ago from p72 the earliest
manuscript we have of first and second
Peter in Jude
I confess I felt a tremendous connection
to this ancient fellow believer who not
only loved the word so much he invested
the time to handwrite these words but
who likewise risked his life to possess
these words I likewise feel a connection
because here in this priceless treasure
are words I live by one of the earliest
testimonies to the deity of Christ an
example of Granville sharps rule 2nd
Peter 1 1 where Jesus is called our God
and Savior or the great treasure of p66
containing major portions of the Gospel
of John here we have the famous passage
in the prologue of john john 1:1 here
the last clause Kaitaia saying hallow
goes and the Word was God - this early
collection of Paul's writings P 46
witnesses to a faith it is endured to
our very day this picture is of the end
of Galatians and the beginning of
Philippians showing that the earliest
evidence supports the historic
acceptance of Pauline authorship of
these works think about these
handwritten papyri written by persecuted
believers slated for destruction by the
decree of Caesar himself and yet despite
250 years of persecution the destruction
of countless copies this body of writing
is a new Testament today boasts the
broadest and earliest manuscript
tradition of any comparable ancient
writing you will forgive me please for
seeing in this the very hand of God
itself so does the New Testament coke
Jesus and by these words we are
referring simply to the expected reality
that there are variations in the
handwritten manuscript tradition of the
New Testament as there would be with any
ancient document then we have to ask did
we expect the Apostles to use photocopy
earth for if the standard to avoid
accusation of this quotation is absolute
perfection of copying then God would
have been precluded from giving his
revelation to mankind until 1949 when
the first photo copiers were built but
that simply cannot be accepted instead
we have seen the New Testament
manuscript tradition faithfully provides
to us the writings of the Apostles the
variants while important do not change
the message of the new test
the vast majority of cases we are able
to determine the original form truly it
must be said that if we cannot know what
the New Testament says then we cannot
know what any historical source outside
of inscriptions on stone originally said
either if the most widely documented
ancient literary collection with the
earliest attestation is insufficient to
accurately communicate to us the words
of men of the past then clearly we must
throw out everything we have claimed to
know about history the onus is on the
skeptic the New Testament sets the
standard in providing clear evidence of
its trustworthy if that is not enough is
it possible the skeptic has set a
standard that is unreasonable and if so
why that is the question this evening
thank you very much ok thank you very
much and thank you James for that very
energetic and intelligent of opening
statement I appreciate it very much
let me speak frankly I don't know how
much of what James just said could sink
in did people who aren't in the field so
I don't know how much of what he said
actually registered and how much was
instead sounded really intelligent well
I can tell you it was very intelligent
but I do want to make a plea with all of
you
I have been asked a number of times over
the last several weeks by friends and
colleagues why I am spending three days
that I could otherwise been spending on
my own research coming to Florida to
have this debate with James knowing that
the audience would be by and large
evangelical Christians and I am not and
why would I why would I take my time to
do that the reason I wanted to take my
time to do that is be
I hope that through these presentations
both James in mind people will open
their minds to other possibilities from
the ones that they are naturally
inclined to accept it is very very
difficult to change your mind about
something that is a deeply held
conviction it is emotionally traumatic
and most people aren't willing to do it
most of you here won't be willing to do
it my plea is that you think at least
about an alternative point of view what
James has just done has given a
30-minute presentation that was in part
rhetorically functioning in order to
assure you that smart people can hold on
to the points of view that you hold fair
enough there are a lot of very smart of
angelical Christians in the world
absolutely but there are other points of
view and you shouldn't write them off
because they're uncomfortable they might
be right and you should not be afraid to
go where the truth takes you I think
that there may be only two or three
people here who are really willing to
open up to the possibility that there
might be other views that other than the
ones that they personally subscribe to
that James is just affirmed by giving an
intelligent talk I'm just asking you for
the possibility of opening up and
thinking that it might be different I
used to believe everything that he just
said I used to agree a hundred percent
with the entire presentation but I
changed my mind I didn't change my mind
willingly I prayed about it a lot I
thought about it a lot
I went down kicking and screaming but I
ended up thinking that the truth was
other than what I had believed before
and I hope some of you can do the same
thing because I can tell you it is worth
following the truth let me summarize
what I take to be the feces of
my of my book misquoting Jesus I'm sick
I don't have a time around it's okay is
that timer going good thank you all
right this says I still have 25 minutes
left thank you it's a textural mistake
let me tell you what I think are the
theses of my book misquoting Jesus these
are the feces I'm going to state these
because I think that there are nine of
them and I think that James only
disagreed with half of one of them but I
might be wrong
feces first we don't have the originals
of any of the books of the New Testament
second the copies we have were made much
later in most instances many centuries
later third we have thousands of these
copies just in the Greek language in
which the New Testament books were all
originally written for all of these
copies contain mistakes either
accidental slips on the part of the
scribes who made them or intentional
alterations by scribes wanting to change
the text to make it say but they already
wanted it to me or thought that they
thought that it did me five we don't
know how many mistakes there are among
our surviving copies but they appear to
number in the hundreds of thousands it's
safe to put the matter in comparative
terms there are more differences in our
manuscripts than there are words in the
New Testament since that vast majority
of these mistakes are completely
insignificant in material and
unimportant a good portion of them show
us nothing more than that scribes and
antiquity could spell no better than
people can today seven some of the
mistakes however matter a lot some of
them affect how a verse a chapter or an
entire book is to be interpreted this is
the point of which I think he disagrees
others of them revealed the kinds of
concerns that were
affecting scribes who sometimes altered
the text in light of debates and
controversies going on in their own
contexts 8 the task of the textual
critic people like me is to figure out
what the author of the text actually
wrote and to see why scribes modified
what he wrote have 9 despite the fact
that scholars have been working
diligently at these tasks for 300 years
there continue to be heated differences
of opinion there are some passages where
serious and very smart scholars disagree
about what the original text said and
there are some places where we will
probably never know if James wants to
insist that we have the original text
then I want to know how does he know in
any given place and I can cite dozens of
them he will have differences in opinion
not only with me who happy who's an
expert in this field but with every
other expert in the field if God
preserved the original text intact where
is it why don't we have it and why
doesn't he know where it is I don't know
the answer to that where he disagrees is
in the statement that differences
actually can matter a lot he points out
most of them different is don't matter
for much of very anything and that is
something that I myself have said my
point here now I'll tell you my
rhetorical point I have nine theses in
this book and he agrees with eight and a
half of them so so let's deal with the
half that he disagrees with that these
differences actually can matter for a
lot well just over during the break I
just decided to drop a few things down
just off the top of my head without
knowing in advance what he was going to
say or what I was going to say in
response so there's one textual bearing
in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus got
angry at a leper who wanted to be healed
in another variant of the same passage
it says Jesus loved him is there a
difference between loving him and
getting angry I'd say there's a
difference
did Jesus feel anxiety going to his
cross in the Gospel of Luke
or did he
that's a big difference is Jesus ever
called the unique God in the New
Testament it depends which manuscripts
you read and it's a big difference
is the doctrine of the Trinity
explicitly taught in the New Testament
it depends which manuscript you read and
it's a big difference did Jesus pray for
those killing him Father forgive them
for they don't know what they're doing
it's a big difference whether he did or
not did the voice of the baptism
indicate that it was on that day that
Jesus became the son of God it depends
which manuscripts you read these
differences matter
don't let James's assurances otherwise
make you sort of lull you into thinking
that in fact there's not a big deal here
there is a big deal here these
differences matter yes most of the
hundred thousand of hundreds of
thousands don't matter but many of them
do matter there are places where we
don't know what the text originally said
let me respond to a couple of specific
comments that you made this is difficult
to do because we are getting into the
realm of scholarship and it's hard to
simplify what this is about in my 5
minutes and 43 seconds at one point he
pointed out that we have an early
manuscript p75
from the late 2nd century early third
century and codex Vaticanus quoted to be
150 years later that are very similar to
one another so he plays therefore
because there's a cure copying between P
75 and B we know that there were no
primitive corruptions this is a
completely bogus argument you can take
other manuscripts from the same date as
P 75 and put them up against codex
Vaticanus and they differ a lot he put a
manuscript on the screen that was the
oldest manuscript that he said that he
had studied I actually looked at this
manuscript held it in my hand for two
hours one afternoon two summers ago P 52
and he pointed out that this is very
similar to the wording that you find in
the trial of John before Pilate and got
John's Gospel the trial Jesus before
Pilate John's Gospel in later
manuscripts he doesn't point out that
there's a significant textual variant
even in this credit card-sized fragment
of a manuscript a significant textual
variant involving the addition or
subtraction of certain words we don't
know how often the earliest scribes
changed their text let me bring up one
datum that has not been brought up yet
the later scribes of middle ages don't
disagree from one another very much
because their trains fries the earliest
copyists were not trained scribes the
fact that later manuscripts agree a lot
don't tell you what the early
manuscripts did did the earliest
manuscripts agree a lot with themselves
or with the originals as it turns out
most of the variants that we have in our
textual tradition are from the earliest
manuscripts that means that the earliest
copies were the least copyists were the
least qualified copyists what about the
copyists who were copying earlier than
the surviving copyists are we to believe
that all of a sudden they were virtually
perfect I don't think so I think that in
fact they probably changed their
manuscripts a lot what's the evidence
the surviving early manuscripts differ a
lot James came up with a very strange
statistic that I don't understand where
he said that there's some kind of 95
percent agreement at different ends of
the spectrum so that virtually were
certain about the entire text of the New
Testament I don't know if James has ever
actually looked manuscripts before but I
can tell you that it isn't that simple
when people try to classify manuscripts
to group them together so that you've
got say you've got a thousand
manuscripts and you want to know which
manuscripts are most like other
manuscripts you compare them all with
one another
if manuscripts agree in 70% of their
variations
you count that as extremely high because
it doesn't happen very often so I don't
know where this 95% figure came from but
you shouldn't rest assured that these
manuscripts are all like one another
because they're not all like one another
let me end in my final 2 minutes and 20
seconds with the issue that he really
does want to talk about the issue of
preservation he thinks that the point of
my book misquoting Jesus is that God did
not preserve the text therefore God not
inspire the text that is not the point
of my book it is not the point of any of
the major chapters in my book it is
simply the point that I begin and end
the book with to explain why this
matters to me personally it matters to
me personally that it's it's there
scholars who disagree but it's not the
main point of the book at all as you'll
see if you simply read the chapters
where I don't even mention the issue
I found his discussion of preservation
to be convoluted and obscure and I
didn't really understand it so let me
put it to you in simple terms and see if
this makes sense this is the way I look
at if God did inspire the words of the
Bible to make sure that the human
authors wrote what he wanted to be
written that's the doctrine of
inspiration why did he not preserve the
words of the Bible making sure that the
human scribes who copied the text wrote
what he wanted to be written james
replies well they didn't have photocopy
machines i know they didn't have
photocopy machines but if if god can
inspire people to write his text why
can't he inspire people to preserve his
texts
i don't know the answer to that if you
want to say that God inspired the Bible
which Bible did he inspire the one that
you read in English the Greek
manuscripts on which it is based which
Greek manuscripts all of them are
different from
another which ones did he inspire were
they all inspired so that the different
versions of Jesus words and all these
manuscripts even though they're all
different they're all inspired how would
you know which words are inspired if you
don't know which words are originally in
the Bible I don't have good answers for
that these are the reasons I gave up my
view of inspiration but it's not the
point of misquoting Jesus and it's not
really the subject of this debate the
debate is does the Bible misquote Jesus
and I'm afraid the answer is yes
it is a little bit difficult for me to
understand why dr. Ehrman misunderstood
so many of the things that I presented
to you first of all I do believe that
all of you are fully capable of
understanding what I was saying I call
Christians to a higher level to
understand issues of textual criticism I
did that in 1995 when I published a book
that is used in seminaries and Bible
colleges across the land called the King
James only controversy which is an
introduction to textual criticism Herman
has often said that his book was the
first book for laymen on that subject it
was not I was out in 1995 is used at
Southern Seminary and masters College
and places like that and if you've read
that then you probably followed
everything I was saying because it
really wasn't anything new dr. Ehrman
has just pointed out that look why does
this matter
has to do is you know James once talked
about preservation well you know when a
a statement when statements are made in
the beginning of your book the
conclusion of your book you raise them
yourself and the debates you do against
Dan Wallace and almost every single talk
you give I think that means it's
probably something that's fairly
important and when the people out in the
world like Christopher Hitchens and
Richard Dawkins and and all my Muslim
apologist friends grab on to those words
and assume that you are giving a
scholarly conclusion yeah I think that's
something worth debating if I put
something in the conclusion of my book
and people take that and run with it I
think I'm responsible for that and so I
think it is something that we should be
examining this evening now it's
interesting those of you who were here
this afternoon noticed that some of the
verses that dr. Ehrman noted were the
very verses that we looked at mark 141
Luke chapter 22 we talked about Hebrews
2:9 and others that he raised evidently
he doesn't understand what it is I just
tried to assert to you he says how does
James know he has the original once
again I honestly do believe I'm not
telling you anything that is unusual for
believing textual critics to have said
for a long period of time we believe
that the originals exist in the
manuscript tradition not a single
manuscript but in the manuscript
tradition so that when we look at mark
1:41 and we look at the evidence that is
the difference between Jesus with
compassion reaching forth his hand or
with anger reaching forth his hands font
the size versus orga size we can look at
the manuscript evidence and one of those
two is the original that's the point the
idea that we have to have absolute
unanimity of opinion has never been held
by anybody as a basis for believing God
has preserved his word yet that is the
standard that dr. Ehrman presents and no
work of antiquity can ever meet that
that's why I keep saying that the only
way then that you could have a
handwritten communication would in
essence be that if a scribes about to
misspell a word or about to make an edit
all of a sudden he'd burst into flames
or god transports him off the off the
off of the rock here called Earth or he
all sudden takes over an automatic
writing and makes him write the right
word this kind of assertion is just
simply without merit there is no reason
to believe that that's why I presented
to you the idea of how God has preserved
his word and he has preserved it through
the entire manuscript tradition so
there's never a controlling Authority
that can change or edit the text put in
doctrines take out doctrines etc etc the
result of that is we have to look at
textual variants but the fact is that is
the best way to preserve the text
especially given the evangelical mandate
of the early church and so what I have
said is exactly what Kurt and Barbara
Allen said and saw it asked him to
respond to what they said in their works
does tenacity exist does the manuscript
tradition provide us with the original
readings yes or no that is the question
that we need to look at he accused me of
trying to lull you into not considering
these things obviously if you were to
pick up the books I've written on this
subject and see that I have addressed
these textual variants that I talk to
everybody about John 7 53 through 8 11
longer ending of mark and these textual
variants when much more depth in my book
on these subjects then you would know
I'm not trying to lull anyone I've been
beating this drum for a long time we
need to know about the history of the
New Testament I'm not trying to lull
anybody anything I'm trying to say look
I think there is a grossly imbalanced
presentation being made by dr. Bart
Ehrman and he's getting all the media in
the world on it
but the other side doesn't get any calls
from NPR the other side doesn't get to
be on The Daily Show only one side gets
to be on those programs and I think it's
time for the other side to be known he
totally misunderstood what I was trying
to present to you and I got this feeling
when Dan Wallace presented the same
information I never heard dr. Herman
respond to it then either I was simply
trying to demonstrate when I looked at P
75 in codex Vaticanus that while these
two manuscripts are extremely close to
one another in their readings they are
not copies of one another they have
different readings and therefore because
you have that happening not just with
them but with other manuscripts as well
the issue is you have multiple lines dr.
Ehrman keeps presenting it like it's the
phone game where you have one copy of
one copy of one copy of one copy in a
straight line adding up all these errors
that's not how it worked not only that
they sometimes have multiple copies you
sometimes has scriptorium where people
were reading and so you'd have one copy
and sometimes they would switch the copy
in between and so on and so forth so you
have text with mixed a textual nature to
them it's much more complicated than
that and there are multiple lines of
transmission so the idea that well you
know if if there was these primitive
corruptions before the manuscript
tradition is found in history therefore
we can never know what the originals
were when you have multiple lines how do
all those multiple lines end up having
the same readings in them not identical
readings but it's still the same New
Testament is still teaching the same
things he also did not understand
whatsoever of the the graphics that I
put up where I asked a computer program
to compare for us two different texts
the Westcott and Hort text and the
byzantine majority platform text I was
not saying that there was 95% agreement
in comparison manuscript carrying a
script in fact I said clearly roll the
tape back and listen
I said very clearly we are looking at
printed texts here that is what does the
Byzantine manuscript tradition look like
what does the Alexandrian lookout look
like and let's compare them in various
places using computer technology to do
so and I gave you the exact number it's
just under 6600 differences between the
Byzantine majority text and the modern
critical text that's a number put it
into the math math for yourself it's
about 95 percent agreement there's about
a 4.7 percent variation between those
printed collation I try to be very clear
about that
and dr. Ehrman has misunderstood what I
was saying calling it a completely bogus
argument he has simply misunderstood
what it is that I was saying now I would
like to take your attention back to the
examples that he just gave mark 141 dr.
Ehrman believes he knows the original he
believe it is the reading of cozec codex
Bezeq and approach ANSYS codex d even
though people like åland and Metzker and
even DC parker have pointed out that
when bez a is alone against the earlier
manuscript tradition that it probably
should not be given much weight only
when it degrees the earlier tradition
should it be given weight in those
situations again I present a paper on
that earlier today we looked at the
bloody sweat
he didn't mention Hebrews 2:9 but I will
because he believes he knows what the
original there is to the unique gob and
organized a AUSA John 1:18 he actually
at that point takes I think a rather
unusual view I think would be a great
thing that many people have disagreed
with him on this on this particular
reading a majority today believe that
the Naga nice they are unique God is the
best reading at that point the Kama
Johan iam no serious textual scholar
believes that has any viability as being
original it is not even a part of the
New Testament manuscripts edition first
on 5/7 until maybe the 15th century at
the earliest it comes over from the
Latin very very clearly it is not a
viable variant at that particular point
each one of these variants I've
mentioned many sitting over there on my
desk I have the
na 27n et die Glocke and if we make that
available I encourage people to purchase
that so that you can look at the textual
evidence yourself and you will see these
various variants you'll be able to see
what the manuscript evidence is and
here's the point if the standard is that
there can be no disagreement for the
Bible to be the authoritative Word of
God and these are things that dr. Ehrman
has said he even made sure at the end of
the radio program just a few weeks ago
in London
probably sitting the same studio i sat
in November on the same program to
insert into the discussion his thesis
statement that we'll look if we how can
this the authoritative Word of God when
we don't know what it originally said
what he's saying is if scholars can
disagree then it's impossible no but it
originally said no I say let everybody
know what the variants are look at how
it would impact the meaning of the text
and recognize that none of the New
Testament books are changed by this any
of these readings that's why I challenge
dr. would show us where your reading of
Hebrews 2:9 changes Hebrews is a book
show us we're reading angry at mark 141
changes the meaning of the gospel of
water what went to any of these John
John clearly presents the deity of
Christ in multiple places whether John
1:18 reads they assert we ask where do
any of these actually do what dr. Ehrman
says change an entire book of the Bible
he has said that many many times I must
say to you that his opening statement is
a statement that I've heard at least 25
times myself because I've listened to
all of his classes have listened to all
of his debates over on my table I have
all of his books including his doctoral
dissertation and his drill compilation
of all of his scholarly writings I don't
get the feeling that dr. airman has
looked at anything that I've written on
this subject whatsoever and that is led
unfortunately to his rebuttal being
filled primarily with the
misunderstanding of what I actually
presented to you and I'm sorry for that
but the fact the matter is here's the
issue that we must get to in the cross
examination does he or does he not agree
with Curt and Barbra Island Dan Wallis
and others
who believed in the tenacity of the text
that is that once a reading enters into
the text it stays there even if it's
silly he loves to tell the story of
manuscript 109 where the scribe copied
across columns in the genealogy of Jesus
and ended up really making everything a
pretty messy because he just I don't
know if he was asleep needed contact
lenses or something I don't know but he
made a mess but it's still there there
are nonsense readings in the manuscript
edition they stay there we still have
them that means the original readings
are still there as well now are there
times are there a small number of places
where we have to look at those variants
and sometimes when it seems like the
internal and external evidence is very
very close should we not do exactly what
modern Bible Translators have done and
put notes in the column that say some
early manuscripts say this and some
early manuscripts say this those of you
have ever heard me preach know that when
I preach on something like that I raise
those issues I don't believe that
Christians should be quote/unquote
protected from those things because
there's no reason to do so that has been
part and parcel of my emphasis all along
and so do the original readings continue
to exist this day that's the first
question and is the standard that is
being presented this evening reasonable
I submit to you that if your standard is
that God is supposed to somehow strike
scribes dead before they make a mistake
or somehow work some sort of miracle
where they want to write one word
because they don't really have spell the
word and all of a sudden their hand has
taken over and they're writing something
else I suggest to you that is
unreasonable
it is not scholarly there is no grounds
for it and I wasn't trying to lull you
into not thinking by presenting to you a
very different way of understanding how
the New Testament has been preserved
over time that will be the issue this
evening that is what we we must look at
where do these variants actually change
the meaning of entire book do we believe
that tenacity of the original text is it
still there and can we make it a
reasonable thing to say that if the New
Testament was inspired the
somehow God must work a second kind of
miracle where every scribe even if he's
if he's huddled in fear of the Romans in
the first few centuries copying by
candlelight on a scrap of papyrus that
somehow he must be transformed into a
perfect dictation machine I submit to
you that was not the standard that even
Jesus and the Apostles used Jesus and
the Apostles look at look at look at
look at the the Gospels
what are they quote from vastly during
the time they quote from the Greek
Septuagint translation the Old Testament
not the Hebrew Old Testament and there
are times when the New Testament writers
actually quote textual variants between
the septage in' and the hebrew they
didn't follow dr. Ehrman's standard in
regards to these things the question
this evening is why should we many have
been those Tischendorf just to name one
dan wallace Moises Silva Gordon feat who
don't follow this idea that well you
know unless there's absolute perfection
of copying we just don't know this is a
form of radical skepticism that would
cause us to reject every other ancient
works accuracy as well do we really need
to do that I submit to you we do not
thank you very much