Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Is the Bible Inspired and Infallible?

What follows is a typical quote about the Bible from a church denominational statement (in this case -- The Assemblies of God):
"The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct"
There are many others like this one but in the end most of them have the following features:
1. The idea of verbal inspiration
2. The Bible is God's revelation to man
3. The Bible is infallible
4. The Bible is authoritative to the point that it defines what we should believe and and do.

Verbal inspiration means that the belief is that God just didn't just give the authors the ideas they used but the exact words to use -- word for word.

Infallibility means that the Bible contains NO errors. Some denominations add the condition -- 'in the original autographs'. This is done to accept the reality that as the Bible has been copied and translated over the years some things may have been changed, altered, etc. by humans either accidentally or on purpose. Textual Criticism (the branch of scholarship that deals with these changes and how they occur) states though as a whole the Bible is the most free of these things of all the documents of antiquity.

Now, I am going to make a statement that I think that this doctrinal statement has some errors in it. Not because I don't believe the Bible is inspired by God or the rule of faith and conduct for the Christian, but I feel the definitions of what it means to be infallible and inspired go beyond what the Bible even says about itself.

What Bible does say about itself is this:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- NASB). Now some translations prefer to bring out the idea of inspiration being "God breathed" which is good as the word in the Greek does have multiple levels of understanding.
Comparing these verses to the doctrinal statement above though there are some discrepancies.
1. The word 'verbal' does not appear in the Scripture itself, not here or anywhere else. The fact is the concept of HOW God inspired Scripture is a debatable point. When a individual or group says that the Bible is 'verbally' inspired they are making a theological statement not a Biblical one. More on this in a moment.
2. The Bible tells people it is trustworthy to lead them to God and can give them direction, etc. but it never makes claims at absolute infallibility. I think there is a reason for this which I will share in a moment.

What is telling to me is how God is conceived in inspiring the Scriptures.
1) In verbal inspiration, God is so fearful that the human writer might get it wrong he literally takes over the writers brain and hand a writes what he wants written. In short the human writer is nothing more than a automation that does not think or write for himself.
2) In a 'God breathed' scenario the image is different. The idea is that God breathes on something and thus animates and exalts its meaning and effect. The idea is the writer is facing a real practical situation and God breathes on that situation and thus animates (gives life) and exalts the final product to a different level. Picture the writer as a candle and God breathing on the flame to make it more intense and bright. This view has both God and the writer working together where the mind of God and the mind of the writer are in harmony but God does not dominate the writer but works with the writer to make their work together inspired.

The implications of this are staggering for the idea of the infallibility. That God may allow the idea He inspires to be taken by the writer and creatively used may mean that the discrepancies that people see in scripture may simply be that God allows interpretive freedom for the writer and that is why the differences and discrepancies. That the Bible is both a Divine and Human work, means that the same event can be looked at in different ways and be interpreted differently by the authors of Scripture themselves.

Probably the best and simplest way to illustrate what I am talking about it is to use the Gospel writers:
Matthew -- tax collector, eyewitness and one of the twelve. Writing to his Jewish brethren
Mark -- eyewitness to some events but not all, disciple of Christ but not one of the twelve, possible one of the seventy. It is believed that Peter was at his elbow as he wrote offering his views. Mark is writing to Gentiles. particularly Romans.
Luke -- Gentile believer, historian, doctor, not an eyewitness but someone who did interview eyewitnesses. Acting as a guy writing a documentary.
John -- One of the twelve and eyewitness, in addition he was one of the inner three disciples (Peter, James and John) giving him first hand experience with some of the events that others did not see. Tells other things the first three do not and offers up details they do not cover as he is writing some 30 years after the other three.

Lets take the the account of The Gerasene Demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-37 and Mark 5:1-20). Picture each author as doing a movie about the life of Jesus.
Matthew's would look like saving Private Ryan -- through an eyewitness lens that is moving very quickly. He notes the main events and moves to the next one without pausing for detail or getting a look at the other parts of the picture. The Demoniac is a Gentile so has little appeal to the Jewish audience he is writing to, so the account is quick and accurate but the details of what happened to either man are unimportant to him-- there are two guys and Jesus casts out the demons into the swine and then leaves -- end of story.
Mark is different -- his is like an up close look at the human side of Jesus and so his details are more specific . Matthew writes like someone at a distance, but Mark like he is right there in the middle of the thing dealing directly with the situation. Peter may be chiming in with the details he remembers as well. The Demoniac is a Gentile and because Mark is writing to Roman Gentiles, he focuses on him for 20 verses as a central character to make his point for his message that Jesus cared about Gentiles. The second guy is missing, but it may be the simple fact that this guy stayed and the other ran off. Mark only really knows about this one, so he doesn't mention the second guy because there would be no point to doing so for his purposes.
Luke is doing a documentary film. Picture interviews after the fact and Luke basically saying --'this is what can be confirmed by all witnesses' like a narrator. No second guy here either, but what Luke is saying is the second guy just dropped out of sight and he simply can't confirm he existed and truth be told from the standpoint of making a point about the accuracy of Jesus' life, the second guy really is just a blip on the radar.

In both the case of Mark and Luke, the second guy may simply have been left out because from the standpoint of significance to the story of Christ he isn't that significant. They are simply editing their film so to speak and leaving him out because he isn't essential to what they are trying to do with their gospel. It does not speak of inaccuracy of anybodies account just that each were allowed by God to tell the story from their point of view with their objectives in mind and thus they are allowed to EDIT the story.

What does this mean for the doctrines of infallibility and inspiration. That we not only need to look at passages of Scripture from God's divine inspiration of the passages involved but that each author put something of themselves into the Scriptures as well. It means the Bible is both Divine and Human in a curious but wondrous mix of God's inspiration and human creativity.

Certain fundamentalist types will object to this (guys I call hyper-fundamentalists) because they feel if the Bible allows human creativity it could lead to error. My point is that if we don't allow for human creativity than God is of divided mind telling different accounts of the same story like he couldn't get it right the first time. By bringing humans in to the inspiration process, it changes what we mean by both inspiration and infallibility that such differences are not only allowed for but expected because each person -- including the Biblical writers -- is different.

Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 2 -- Bart's Bible is Not Mine

The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.

Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.

In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.

A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.

Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.

Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Five

Chapter 5 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman's has some problems chief among them is his assumption that god does not intervene in human affairs.

1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.


2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?


3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.

4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?

5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.

6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.

7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.

8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.

9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.

10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Six

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Four

At this point, Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is dealing with the issue of suffering being the consequence of sin. It is also where I get a little disappointed. The Disagreements are as follows:

1. Bart does not seem to have proper understanding of God's discipline. In particular he seems to think God's discipline is harsh but then again from God's perspective would it be?

2. I was also disappointed to find Bart engaging in a particular brand of politics -- liberal. He bashes capitalism (although he enjoys its benefits) and takes a pot shot at Iraq -- "masses of people dying in Iraq". When did that happen?

3. He state the Bible is a fully human book -- can't agree for a number of reasons, chief among them the historical nature of the Bible as it record God interaction with man.

4. In the debate he seems to skip over both Babel and the Flood parts that indicate the evilness of humanity and their lack of obedience.

5. While I have problems with God ordering the genocide of the Canaanites, I also realize these were not nice people and that their children would have probably grew up to be like them. I think God is taking a long term view. Had the Israelites obeyed God they would have avoided all the long term wars and suffering that followed that amount to greater suffering than simple genocide. Hard but true. Obedience would have avoided this suffering.

6. When a prophecy is fulfilled it does not mean divine will absolute it means the understanding of the prophecy is fulfilled. There is an inconsistency to Bart's reasoning. on the one hand he says that God does not possess a crystal ball with the prophets and yet that is how he treats it when talking about suffering. Can't have it both ways.

7. One thing came through to me loud and clear at this time -- one tone of the book is a cultural arrogance -- that is that the ancient culture of the Bible is inferior to ours. You cannot judge a different culture by standards we have -- their different and who are we to say our culture should judge others. Bart judging slavery of the ancient world is like this -- in that time slavery is just a social status. It also certainly does not say that the forced labor of Israels enemies was like the Nazi death camps or something. He does this again when he talks about Rome. Bart Ehrman sure puts himself up as the person who has the authority to judge ancient cultures and find them wanting -- I wonder what his basis for comparison is?

8. The David thing gets me too. David does get off -- by the law he should have been killed but the price for David is high -- he looses four sons and one of his daughters is raped. In addition he spends a good amount of time running from a son who is trying to kill him and who sleeps with his ten concubines. David suffers a lot for his one sin -- did he really get off? The one thing that does bother me though is the baby's death but David indicates an afterlife so is the child really bad off. Then that reasoning opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it.

9. More higher criticism -- this time that Luke wrote after the fact about the destruction of Jerusalem - -this is pure conjecture, but then again if Jesus predicts the the fall of Jerusalem before the fact and Luke simply records it before the fact then that would be one more proof Jesus is what He said and Christianity said he was. Bart can't have that.

10. Bart gives credence to freewill defence but does not explore it fully. He always pulls up short of where I would in this chapter.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Five.

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Three

Now some disagreements with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem chapter 3.
This is going to be longer ;-).

1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.

2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.

3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.

4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.

5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.

6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.

7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.

8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.

9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.

10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.

11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.

12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.

a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.

b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.

c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.

d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.

e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.

f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.

I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.

Next: Agreements with chapter Four

Thoughts on Misquoting Truth -- A Response to Ehrman

Hey just finished Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Davis which is a response to Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I have to say it is well done as much as Ehrman's. Vinny wrote me a list of what Ehrman might say in a comment to my last post to my questions and I agree because I have read both books and much of what Jones has said I would have said in response.

A little background on me -- I have taken two years of Greek and the entire second year focused on two things -- translation and textual criticism. I know the ropes and the basic arguments -- my problem with Ehrman is that his book is very one sided and like Jones I find his reasoning flawed.

In responding to Ehrman and Vinny (note Vinny did not say that he agreed with Ehrman but tried to speak for him) I and Jones would like to respond in the following manner.

(1) The rate of variants in the third century manuscripts is greater than the
rate of variants in the fourth century manuscripts. The rate of variants in
the second is greater than the rate in the third. Projecting the trend
backwards points towards the rate of variants being greater still in the
first century.

But what is the nature of those variants. 99% of them are, to be blunt -- insignificant and can be easily corrected -- that means only 4000 variants (roughly) are of any real significance. Of these many can be explained and the best reading discovered. The ones left (In my experience I found only about 25) where it is a toss up what it could read -- both sides of the reading were backed up by other Scriptures. I would also like to point out that as far as variants in the first and second century there are many of the insignificant type not very many significant ones. The fact is all variants can be explained in different ways but none of them is truly shaking to the basic tenets of Christian faith or undermines the history value of the documents.

(2) Origen indicates that the early copying practices were poor.

Yeah and Origen is one of the later church fathers -- he is not early on in the
question of the quality of the first and second century documents being a
late
second third century father. He also could be whining about the quality
of
what he had access to -- being only one witness though he stand alone.

(3) The quotations in the early Apostolic Fathers point towards instability in
the texts.

Instability of what kind -- small scribal errors or wholesale alterations? They really don't say. In think the significance of this is overplayed we don't know specifically at times what they are talking about.

(4) Scholars believe that ancient texts were most susceptible to corruption in
the first hundred years after they were composed.

Which Scholars -- sorry the basic tenet of textual criticism is -- older is better because of less chance of corruption, now were going to contradict this idea because Ehrman's says so? -- Ehrman's might say this but the fact is 'most scholars' is usually code for -- 'the ones that agree with me' See my post "Most Scholars Agree..." The fact is that scholarly debate this point is sharp and contested, a point that Ehrman's omits and I think on purpose.

(5) The earliest copyists might have thought the writings important, but they
did not think of them as scripture.

Jones smashes this notion as both Paul's writings and others are thought of as Scripture and are named as such by other writers including the church fathers. The fact is this is a big whopper of a lie. I have read the earlier church fathers and they refer to many writings of the apostles as 'Scripture". A such they would have been carefully preserved by someone -- to say all early Christians didn't consider these things as Scripture is contradicted by the early lists of books considered Scripture including the hostile witness of Marcion.

(6) Early pagan copyists would not have even had a concept of
“scripture.”

And. Even so a pagan scribe would have still done his job well if a rich client payed him -- his reputation would have depended on it. Rich Christians then could have not only preserved Scripture but hired good scribes to copy them -- a point Ehrman never considers.

In addition, Jones points out many other things that are problems with Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Truth is a good read. Read both books and make up your own mind.

Initial Thoughts on Misquoting Jesus

To get some background on Bart Ehrman's thoughts on Scripture I picked up his other book Misquoting Jesus -- Who Changed the Bible and Why. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list. I read it and now I understand why Bart has a problem with God -- he doesn't really believe the Bible accurately represents God because of the variants in the texts of Scripture.

The arguments he presents are not new but he communicates them well -- he has a great way of making the complicated more understandable. Besides this I still think his reasoning has problems:

1. He thinks the early copyists (1st and 2nd centuries) were just rich Christians and not professional scribes. Given the absence of a text from the period how would we know this? How can we ascertain quality if we have nothing to look at. We do many things about how the scripture were preserved. One question: if it was the rich Christians who held the texts wouldn't they be rich enough to hire a professional scribe to do the work especially if they thought the Scriptures in question were important?

2. One thing he does not mention is how much of Scripture has no variants at all. Wouldn't this indicate that the text at least at these points are accurate and trustworthy?

3. He still relies on higher criticism in this book which is largely opinion.

Right now I am reading the counter to this book by Timothy Paul Jones called Misquoting Truth. Hopefully his arguments will cover everything I think about in dealing with Ehrman. If not I will mention some of them.