In every prize-fight. there is preparation but no matter how well you prepare the opening round is where the two fighters feel each other out and size one another up. Occasionally one fighter will go for the early knockout but for the most part the opening round is getting to know the real fighter against you and see what strategy he is employing.
Bart Ehrman’s introduction to Misquoting Jesus is such a time for me to feel out my opponent and I have to freely confess that his testimony of his ‘conversion’ from believing in an inspired inerrant Word of God to seeing the Bible as merely a human book leaves a little to be desired. It is not just the content of his conversion experience but the rational behind some of these events of his life and the text of the Bible that give me problems with his view-point. Bart in this introduction does lay out his basic points that he will attempt to expand later:
1) Bart contends that textual criticism shows the New Testament of the Bible is full of errors
2) Because we do not possess copies of the original manuscripts fo the New Testament books we cannot know what it really said.
3) Bart contends that the doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture is faulty because it does not take into account the human nature of the Bible
4) That because of inconsistencies in parts in the text of the New Testament, the whole of the New Testament might be completely in error.
Let’s take these one at a time:
1) I guess I want a definition of what Bart means by ‘full of”. If he means that there are errors in textual transcription or that there are seeming inconsistencies because writers of say the gospels may have heard different witnesses, then I would say he is somewhat right, but his use of ‘full of errors’ is a little emotionally laced. The fact is that 99% of the New Testament does not have errors of significance and the inconsistencies only make up a small portion of the New Testament. What Bart fails to notice or want to put forth is that these things are a small part of the New Testament not a majority. The term ‘full of’ is a little over the top and he should know this being an expert.
2) Textual Criticism is actually dedicated to the reconstruction of the text of Scripture and it has actually has done a good job. Bart takes a leap of logic here I cannot accept because he knows full well that 99% of New Testament is pretty much as it would be if we did find the originals. What he does not want to tell everyone is that textual criticism has actually probably for the most part reconstructed the original text and with the discovery of very old papyrus manuscripts dating back to the early second century, that reconstruction has good solid backing. What he does not want to tell anyone it seems is that the gap between the originals and the oldest copies is not much more than a hundred years. Not a lot of room for people to really play with the text of Scripture. I would not be surprised if we found an original copy of one of the books of the New Testament that there would be very little difference between it and the copies we currently have.
3) This is where me and part me and Bart agree: He contends several times and I concur that the errors and inconsistencies in the text mean that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is out to lunch. I agree that this doctrine is a bad one because of these things but what does that prove beyond this? Does it prove the Bible is not inspired by God? Not really, all it really does is proves one form of the belief in the inspiration of Scripture is probably faulty. Not surprising seeing it was created by humans. Does the idea that human beings injected themselves into the writing and transcription of Scripture nullify the idea of God being involved? No. What Bart is falling into the trap of is dualism. Somehow if humans do something in true freedom then God is not involved. His views on this are shaped ultimately on his theology of the God and man relationship than he probably would like to admit. My question is: Why can’t this view on the God and man relationship be faulty instead of the idea of Scripture being inspired in some way?
4) Honestly, does the fact that one witness sees one angel at the resurrection of Jesus in one account and another sees two nullify the resurrection itself? Not really, many so called inconsistencies can be accounted for in looking at things differently. Even so, just because the Bible may be in error about small things or items here and there, it does not prove the whole is bunk. These things do not prove the accounts are not historically reliable as a whole, nor do they prove that the events as recorded did not happen. All it proves is that each writer was an individual and did his own work and thus reported things his own way. There may be small things to scratch out head about, but the big things are still very much there without the ability to bring them down. Witnesses to an accident often have differences in their accounts but no one goes around saying the accident itself never took place at all because of these inconsistencies.
If a have a jab punch in this fight that I think I can keep landing on Bart’s head, it is this idea: Just because you have proven that a certain protestant doctrine of inspiration might be wrong, it does not prove that the Bible is not inspired in some other way and still for the most part historically reliable in its account of the events.
You the reader can score this round. It is still early and the fight has yet to really start but what do you think?