Crash the Future

After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 or so variations in the New Testament consist primarily of single words in a given verse. “Did the original text read 'this' or 'that'?” They are definitely not as shocking as the three variations just addressed, which is why Ehrman does not spend much time on these additional variants. They will not really get him any additional conspiracy mileage upon which to sell his book.

He does hint at this fact when he indicates that a typical example of other variants is found in “...Rev. 1:5, where the author prays to 'the one who released us from our sins.' The word for 'released' (LUSANTI) sounds exactly like the word for 'washed' (LOUSANTI), and so it is no surprise that in a number of medieval manuscripts the author prays to the one 'who washed us from our sins.'” (p. 93) But, even in instances like Rev. 1:5 the meaning of the original text is not lost. The ideas of being washed from our sin and being released from our sin are both common biblical concepts that mirror one another. Neither variant shakes the foundations of Christian theology nor provides a different theological meaning of the passage, contrary to what Ehrman would like to imply. Yet this sort of variant, which is slight but has no effect on the message of a text, typifies the 37 remaining variations debated by scholars today. For some reason that just doesn't seem as flashy and scandalous as the “400,000 or more!” with which Ehrman started.

In my mind, this prompts a responding question, “If this is the best that a highly biased skeptic with a publicly admitted agenda and a substantial financial interest in making the Bible seem unreliable can do, then why would I question its reliability?” To the contrary, I am actually encouraged by the arguments of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. He brings the worst accusations available against the text of the Bible, and does so in a very misleading and sensational way, and still yet, once a few clarifications are pointed out, his argument is quickly diffused. And the entire New Testament stands unchallenged in its textual authenticity and reliability except for three non-essential passages, which coincidentally are clearly marked in the footnotes of almost any Bible you pick up.

This tells us something very important: anywhere there is not a footnote indicating otherwise, scholars are certain what is written is original. That means that at least 99.5% of the copy of the New Testament in your hands is recognized to be, without a doubt, the words that were originally written 2000 years ago. That is something people like Bart Ehrman definitely do not want the public to realize for two reasons. First, it would hurt their book sales upon which they have built their professional reputations and careers. Second, it means that people, including Ehrman himself, must deal with the words of the Bible as authentic and reliable records. A person is not required to believe the Bible is telling the truth, but its claims cannot be simply brushed aside, unfaced and unanswered, because of a supposed unreliable textual past. This means that any truly honest person must wrestle with the teachings of the New Testament on their own merit, rather than simply discounting them from the start as unreliable writings with all kinds of variations such that there is no way to tell what was originally written. I wonder if that is something Bart Ehrman and most others who level nebulous accusations against the reliability of the biblical text are willing to do.

Here’s the bottom line. It would be extremely difficult for anyone with a good knowledge of the manuscript evidence to argue that the text of the Bible was unreliably transmitted. We have what was originally written by the original authors 2000 years ago.