Introduction
Bart Ehrman, a renowned textual critic and historian of early Christianity, has long been a polarizing figure in discussions about the reliability of the New Testament. His popular-level works, such as Misquoting Jesus, often emphasize the vast number of textual variants in the manuscript tradition, leading many readers to question whether we can truly know what Jesus said or what the original New Testament documents contained. However, among his academic peers, Ehrman adopts a more measured stance, acknowledging that the essential doctrines of Christianity remain intact despite textual variations.
Compounding this inconsistency is Ehrman’s frequent assertion that historians must reject miracles a priori, despite his lack of formal credentials in historical methodology. He also fails to take responsibility for the misunderstandings his popular works generate, even though he is aware that many readers arrive at incorrect conclusions about the reliability of the New Testament. This article critiques Ehrman’s shifting rhetoric from a Christian perspective, highlighting his misleading textual skepticism, his questionable historical claims, and his failure to uphold the ethical responsibilities of a teacher.
Ehrman’s Questionable Historical Claims
Despite his primary academic focus in textual criticism, Ehrman often presents himself as a historian of early Christianity. While textual criticism involves analyzing manuscript transmission and variations, historiography—the discipline of historical methodology—requires different qualifications, such as training in evaluating sources, contextual analysis, and historical synthesis. Ehrman’s formal credentials, including his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, are in New Testament textual criticism, not historiography.
Nevertheless, he frequently asserts that historians must approach miracles with skepticism a priori. For example, he has stated:
"Historians cannot establish miracles because miracles, by definition, are the least likely occurrence. If they were the most likely occurrence, they wouldn’t be miracles."
While skepticism is an essential tool in historical inquiry, Ehrman’s categorical dismissal of miracles is based on philosophical presuppositions rather than objective historical analysis. Many historians argue that supernatural claims must be evaluated within their historical context rather than ruled out in advance. Ehrman’s rigid approach reflects his personal worldview more than sound historical methodology, raising concerns about whether he applies genuine historical principles or simply reinforces philosophical bias.Ehrman’s Popular-Level Skepticism
In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman famously states:
"What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.... There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
This statement, while technically accurate in highlighting the sheer number of textual variants, is misleading in its implications. The vast majority of these variants are minor—spelling errors, word order changes, and other inconsequential differences that do not affect meaning. By emphasizing the number of variants without clarifying their nature, Ehrman fosters doubt about the reliability of the New Testament among lay readers, even though he knows the text remains largely intact.
Ehrman’s Academic Concessions
Despite his popular-level skepticism, Ehrman has admitted in academic settings that textual variants do not threaten core Christian doctrines. In The Text of the New Testament, co-authored with Bruce Metzger, he acknowledges:
"Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another."
Furthermore, he concedes:
"Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
These statements reveal a stark contrast between Ehrman’s scholarly conclusions and the tone of his popular works. While he acknowledges that the New Testament text is largely intact, his public-facing books often obscure this fact, leading many to believe that the Bible is fundamentally unreliable.
The Responsibility of a Teacher
A responsible scholar and educator has a duty to ensure that students and readers arrive at correct conclusions based on the best available data. When misunderstandings arise—especially due to misleading rhetoric—it is the educator’s obligation to clarify the truth rather than allow misinformation to spread unchecked. However, Ehrman does not take responsibility for the confusion his popular-level works generate.
Despite knowing that many of his readers walk away believing the New Testament is hopelessly corrupt and that the original words of Jesus are unknowable, he does little to correct this misunderstanding. His academic concessions indicate that he knows such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, yet he continues to allow lay audiences to be misled by his rhetorical emphasis on textual variants. This failure to reconcile his academic integrity with his public messaging raises ethical concerns, as it leads many to doubt Christianity based on a distorted presentation of textual criticism. A more responsible approach would involve openly correcting these misunderstandings and ensuring that both scholarly and popular audiences receive an accurate picture of the reliability of the New Testament.
The Strength of the New Testament Textual Tradition
Christian scholars argue that the New Testament is one of the best-preserved ancient texts. The sheer number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, along with thousands of Latin, Coptic, and Syriac copies—allows textual critics to reconstruct the original wording with remarkable accuracy. As Ehrman himself admits:
"Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament."
This admission underscores the reliability of the New Testament text, contradicting the skepticism he promotes in his popular works.
Conclusion
Bart Ehrman’s shifting rhetoric presents a challenge for Christian apologists and scholars. While his academic work acknowledges the integrity of the New Testament text, his popular books and lectures often cast unwarranted doubt on its reliability. This inconsistency has led many to question their faith unnecessarily. More concerning is his failure to correct the misunderstandings his popular works generate, despite knowing his readers are arriving at erroneous conclusions. A responsible teacher should clarify misunderstandings when they arise, but Ehrman’s reluctance to do so suggests that he prioritizes rhetorical persuasion over academic integrity.
Additionally, his self-identification as a historian raises concerns about his methodological approach. While textual criticism is a valuable discipline, it does not grant expertise in historical methodology. His categorical rejection of miracles as unhistorical reflects philosophical bias rather than objective historical inquiry.
A careful examination of Ehrman’s own admissions reveals that the New Testament remains a trustworthy historical document, preserving the essential teachings of Christianity despite textual variations. Readers should therefore approach Ehrman’s works with discernment, recognizing the difference between scholarly consensus and rhetorical persuasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment