October 26, 2006 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following analysis of the “Introduction” to Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) is by Pastor Bradley Robert Berglund, First Baptist Church, Cannon Falls, Minnesota,1stbaptistcannon@frontiernet.net. It is published by permission.

I wish to introduce you, the reader, to one who represents the face of Biblical textual criticism at the dawning of the twenty-first century. Much has been made of the backgrounds of the first popular editors of the critical text: Westcott and Hort. Much less attention was given to the giants of the latter part of the twentieth century: Aland, Metzger, and Martini. Metzger’s writings on the New Testament text were often used as the textbook in all types of divinity schools including fundamental institutions of higher learning. He graced the speaker’s platform of Dallas Theological Seminary while serving on the translation committee for the Revised Standard Version and acting a chairman for the New Revised Standard Version. He has been a scholar respected by all groups from liberal to conservative.

Bart Ehrman is the newest generation of Biblical textual scholarship. After gathering his undergraduate work at respected Evangelical schools (Moody and Wheaton), Ehrman attended Princeton Theological Seminary and placed himself under the tutelage of Metzger. In the acknowledgements of the current book Ehrman says, “I have dedicated this book to my mentor and ‘Doctor-Father,’ Bruce M. Metzger, who taught me the field and continues to inspire me and my work.” One of Metzger’s classic works, The Text of the New Testament, is now being released in its fourth edition. On the cover of this edition, Bart Ehrman appears as a co-author. While this is not absolute proof, it is evidence that Oxford Press and other scholarly intuitions consider Bart Ehrman to be the new face of textual critical scholarship.

I was first introduced to Bart Ehrman as I was researching the Gnostic view of Christology. One of my resources was a book containing a collection of articles which examined the claims of Dan Brown and his popular novel, The Da Vinci Code from a secular viewpoint. Modern Gnostic writers were given liberty to present the best apologies for their theology without the usual contradictions of Biblical literalists and standard church historians. Bart Ehrman, though not himself a Gnostic, wrote as an expert in history pointing out the liberties in fact that Dan Brown took in framing the conspiracy which so dominates the book. My second connection with Ehrman occurred when I was looking to purchase the third edition of Metzger’s work as cited above. When searching for his name, I began to realize that Bart Ehrman was arising as the published voice of modern Biblical scholarship.

The marketers at Amazon.com sent me an email about a book authored by Bart Ehrman that I might wish to purchase. It was called, Misquoting Jesus--The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The review of the article praised Ehrman as brilliant man who had moved from an absolute, literal faith in the Bible to scholarly doubt.

[“The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections.” Bryce Christensen, copyright American Library Association, all rights reserved”] 

The advertisers got what they wanted; I ordered the book. I was later alerted to a broadcast that aired on Comedy Central in which Ehrman promoted this book. [Colbert Report, June 20, 2006; the author was able to watch the interview on the internet.] As the silly sophomoric host feigned to be an arrogant and stupid fundamentalist, Ehrman twice during the five minute interview declared that he is now an agnostic when it comes to his faith in God. How does one who started as a “fundamentalist” end up as an agnostic? His book answered the question. [The terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’ are being used as Bart Ehrman would define them. The fundamentalist is a Biblical literalist who presupposes the inspiration and inerrancy of Scriptures. The evangelical is one step removed, believing in an authoritative Bible, but not with all the dogma of a fundamentalist.]

The introduction to Misquoting Jesus is autobiographical. In spite of the fact that the work is an attempt to explain textual criticism in terms that ordinary people can understand, Ehrman felt compelled to describe his own personal journey in the field. A few defining moments were true epiphanies in his pilgrimage to agnosticism.

During his school years, Ehrman grew up next door to a pastor of a mainline protestant church and made friends with the son of this pastor. Religion was respected, and his participation in it was more than average.

“I saw the Bible as a mysterious book of some importance for religion; but it certainly was not something to be learned or mastered.”

As a sophomore in high school, Ehrman says was introduced to a Bible-based Christianity through Campus Life Youth for Christ. He states, “I … asked Jesus into my heart and had a bona fide born-again experience.” He immersed himself into the teachings and activities of this group and became keenly interested in Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant written word.

At the urging of his companions, Ehrman entered Moody Bible Institute majoring in Bible and theology. It was here that he discovered his first doubts about his new-found confidence in the Bible. While the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy were taught without apology, Ehrman discovered that this purity existed only in the original manuscripts to which we have no access today. In fact, due to “error-ridden copies of the autographs,” we can only be reasonably sure of what the Bible say, not precisely sure. His disturbing thoughts had little impact upon his peers. “They were happy to rest on the claim that the autographs had been inspired, and to shrug off, more or less, the problem that the autographs do not survive. For me, though, this was a compelling problem.” [Autographs refers to the first edition of a book, written in the hand of the author or an associate (Rom. 16:22).]

If God’s word is vital, and its details are critical, then retrieving these original manuscripts became the passionate desire of Ehrman even though his peers were satisfied with what they had. To them, it seemed to be a waste of time and energy to quibble over a few thorny variants when the manuscripts had so much agreement among themselves.

While at Moody, Ehrman was introduced to the principles of textual criticism. He realized that to be qualified in this field, he would need to master Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and languages such as German and French to understand what the textual scholars had written. It was at this time that Ehrman determined to become a “Christian scholar.”

“My idea at the time was that there were plenty of highly educated scholars among evangelical Christians, but not many evangelicals among the (secular) highly educated scholars, so I wanted to become an evangelical ‘voice’ in secular circles, by getting degrees that would allow me to teach in secular settings while retaining my evangelical commitments.”

He completed his bachelor’s degree at Wheaton College. When he left the “fundamentalist” Bible institute, he entered cautiously into a top ranked “evangelical” university. At Moody, the dogma of inspiration and inerrancy silenced the details of doubt raised by textual criticism. But at Wheaton, the very dogma of inspiration and inerrancy was unimportant to most students. They did fine without it.

At Wheaton, more of his confidence in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scriptures was eroded. As he became skilled in the nuances of the Hebrew and the Greek, he began to realize that no translation is [supposedly] capable of precisely replicating the fullest meanings of a passage. He concluded that “the doctrine of inspiration (is) a doctrine only for the scholarly elite, …”  

“What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language, such as English, that has nothing to do with the original words?”

His further studies into textual criticism produced more questions than answers. He became troubled when he began to link the doctrine of inspiration to the modern theory regarding the preservation of the Word of God. The idea that God miraculously provided His word but failed to preserve that word made no sense. At Wheaton, his professors applauded such independent thought and encouraged Ehrman to pursue his education under the master of that day, Bruce Metzger.

In his move from evangelicalism to something even broader, he was less anxious than before. Wheaton had broadened his horizons after the restrictive dogmatism of Moody. His desire to be an evangelical scholar was still on track, but now he adopted a new purpose. “I was intent on pursuing my quest for the truth wherever it might take me, trusting that any truth I learned was no less true for being unexpected or difficult to fit into the pigeonholes provided by my evangelical background.” He discovered other aspiring conservative evangelical scholars in Princeton for much the same reasons as his own. In confidence, they all admitted that it was difficult to “keep the faith” in the midst of this Ivy League divinity school.

It was at Princeton that Ehrman finally found the acceptable path that has led him to his present position. He wrote a term paper for a course on the Gospel of Mark. In it, he analyzed the apparent contradiction found in Mark 2:26.* His old thoughts regarding and inspired and inerrant Scriptures were challenged by the “facts” presented in scholarly study. According to his own admission, his conclusion was a bit convoluted, but he succeeded in providing an answer that defended the inerrant Scriptures. His professor graded the work and wrote at the end, “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” The solution was so simple. When Ehrman accepted this premise, “the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well.”

[* The Old Testament claims Ahimelech, not Abiathar, served in the office of high priest. Many simple and plausible solutions have been offered by men who have faith in the accuracy of the Bible, but for the most part they are rejected by the “scholars.” In Hard Sayings of the Bible, Evangelical scholars such as Kaiser and Bruce believe either 1) Mark accurately wrote Ahimelech, but an early copier changed it to Abiathar (pure speculation--no Mss. evidence), 2) Mark relayed a faulty report of the incident, or 3) Mark was not bothered by the details. The author of the article concludes, “The truth is that this is one of the problems in Scripture for which we do not have a fully satisfactory solution. We do not have Mark’s original edition to check which name was in it, nor do we have Mark here to question about his state of mind. We do not have a tape recording of the preaching of Peter (thought by many to be the source of Mark) to see if he was using the right or the wrong name. While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, … we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark (p. 412).”]

Upon making this important theological jump, Ehrman began to rethink his foundation for the studies of the text. His new outlook was liberating. Instead of trying to choose the original reading based upon the manuscript evidenced and the expected premise that the originals would lead to an inerrant, inspired word, Ehrman rejected the assumption that the science will lead to Scriptural accuracy. He was no longer looking for Holy Spirit inspired words penned by Paul; he was only looking for Paul’s original words. Wherever the evidence would take him, he would follow, even if the path led to denying Biblical accuracy. In fact, alleged errors and contradictions became the fingerprints of authenticity. To Ehrman, they were rugged pieces of truth that editors had failed to polish.

He summarizes his journey as follows:

“In short, my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigations into the manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismic change for me. Before this--starting with my born-again experience in high school, through my fundamentalist days at Moody, and on through my evangelical days at Wheaton--my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the Bible that way. The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied and changed the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. … Each author is a human author and needs to be read for what he … has to say, not assuming that what he says is the same, or conformable to, or consistent with what every other author has to say. The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book.”

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Bart Ehrman has delineated his path of “enlightenment,” but in the strict, Biblical sense of the word, this is a tale of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1). I use this term with utmost care. I do not believe that Ehrman would dispute the accuracy of my statement, but he would, without question, challenge its foundation. If the Bible is a man-made book, then apostasy from its teachings is a man-made vice. Without shame, Bart Ehrman denies both the Bible and the faith that he once professed. Speaking of his “born-again” experience he says, “It got me started on a lifelong journey of faith that has taken enormous twists and turns, ending up in a dead end that proved to be, in fact, a new path that I have since taken, now well over thirty years later.”

What is the root of his apostasy? Some might lay the blame for Ehrman’s apostasy on textual criticism. While it is clear that this played a major part in his incremental departure, it is not the root of apostasy. The roads into apostasy are legion. Bart Ehrman “followed the truth” into apostasy. His was an academic and philosophical journey. Most common instances are deeply personal. For instance, the seminary student, Karl Marx, rejected God when he did not have his prayers answered in the way he expected them to be. Some turn their backs upon their churches because of some vile activity that was either done to them or one they loved. Still others wrestle with the fact that their sinful fleshly appetites (especially in the realm of their sexual lives) are at odds with the revealed will of God in Scriptures. To find satisfaction, some apostates will declare that God made them the way they are, and that they need to embrace these appetites rather than stifle them. They look for an apostate church which fashions a god that conforms to their rationalistic image.

From man’s point of view, apostasy occurs when one repudiates the doctrines of his saving faith which he at one time owned. But from a spiritual point of view apostasy occurs when one rejects his past conformity to a superficial creed or ethic. One might choose to own and embrace the dogmas of people he respects, especially if he is told that he belongs to the group. He dons his religion like Sunday dress and conforms into the image of peer expectations escaping detection by those who measure faith by mere external conformity. Saving faith, while professed outwardly, has no reality in his soul. A fundamentalist without saving faith is merely a shell of the reality of a Bible-based walk. To the apostate, his renunciation of the shell is one of the most liberating experiences he has in life; it is like coming out of a closet. He believes every fundamentalist is as empty as he was and needs liberation from his superficial beliefs and rules.

Ehrman’s “bona fide born-again experience” is debatable. His testimony describes how he asked Jesus to fill a void in his life, a void he claims, in retrospect, is common to all teens. “If we would only ask Christ in, he would enter and fill us with the joy and happiness that only the ’saved’ could know.”

I, too, had a “bona fide born-again experience.” As a young child, I responded to the gentle invitation of a sincere Christian worker. I listened to what he said and prayed when he asked me to do so. I placed a measure of childish confidence in the fact that I prayed a prayer in a church. It was later that an evangelist preached on receiving Jesus as my personal Savior from sin. Until I had a grasp of why I needed peace with God, any prior “experience” was meaningless. It is impossible to say what exactly happened when Ehrman responded to the message, but the fruit we see today says something was wrong.

The heart of apostasy is one that was never changed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

It is possible for a genuine born-again believer to end up where Ehrman is today? While some debate the doctrine of the security of the believer, it is the author’s conviction that this is impossible. The testimony of Ehrman is rare, but I have seen it repeated in other lives. I know of school acquaintances which abided by the same rules that I did. They attended to the same preachers and teachers, but today they also believe their “born-again” years to be a “dead end”. While each has his own story of how he became “enlightened,” the result speaks to the real condition. Their fruit betrays their professions and it is by their fruits that they must be known.

CAN WE AGREE WITH EHRMAN?

Is it possible for one to find common ground with apostasy? The Bible is free of ambiguity on this topic. According to 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1 belief and unbelief are mutually exclusive. There is no middle ground. There can be no partnership between righteousness and unrighteousness, nor can fellowship exist between light and darkness. Christ and Belial can never perform in harmony with one another, nor can belief and unbelief share common goals. The temple of God has no business forging a statement of concord with idolatry. God’s temple is sanctified for His exclusive use. Nothing of a defiling nature should be accepted in its courts.

The views of Bart Ehrman regarding God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the authority of the Bible are polar opposites of what Biblical Christianity has always believed. In my mind, the difference is as distinct as night and day. We are clearly at an impasse which is the result of faith.

While I fully disagree with Ehrman, I respect him for his integrity. His passionate pursuit of “the truth” parallels my own. For this reason, we share a common frustration with those who would seek to minimize the differences between the two. These are represented by fundamentalists and evangelicals who want to concurrently accept Biblical confidence and scholarly criticism. I can relate to his frustrations with those at Moody and Wheaton who refused to be bothered by the variants.

I agree with Ehrman that one’s treatment of the Bible affects more than his theology; it affects his very being. In his journey to agnosticism, Ehrman states that his studies of the texts of the New Testament “have made a real difference to me emotionally, and intellectually, to my understanding of myself, the world I live in, my views of God, and the Bible…”

The moderate middle looks at the poles and says that this is much ado over little; it is a battle over mole-hills, not mountains. The variants may impact one’s understanding of a given passage, but they will never shake the foundations of one’s faith. To the contrary, Ehrman says that his doubts must shake the faith of one who truly loves “the truth” and is willing to follow it out of his comfort zone.

“What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age--abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol--or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty?”

Most Evangelicals would shudder at Ehrman’s first question and most fundamentalists would cringe in hearing the second. But as he points out, many “evangelicals” see no need to defend inerrancy, and most “fundamentalists” believe that preservation is open to honest debate. These are not mere intellectual exercises over trivial points of difference. The foundation of your faith rests in your ability to access God’s pure word. While moderation is a common answer, it does not genuinely address the problem. Those on the poles see this clearly.

Another interesting point of agreement is in linking the doctrines of preservation and inspiration. Those who have attended fundamentalist or evangelical institutions have more often than not been told that these two doctrines are distinct, having no bearing upon each other. For this reason, we can believe that what was originally given was miraculously inspired and inerrant, and concurrently accept the fact that we do not have an indisputable copy of that original. Supposedly, we posses a close approximation, but we do not own an exact duplication of God’s word. To demand such a document today is unreasonable.

I must agree with Ehrman. The two doctrines are in every way analogous and interdependent. Again, while our conclusions are polar, our mystification with the middle is common.

“I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them … The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.”

Ehrman concludes that God performed neither miracle; I am convinced that He performed both miracles, though not in a way that is acceptable to rationalistic thinking. The common idea that God performed one without the other is flawed. It undermines the purity of either faith in the written word of God or scholarship in the religious thoughts of ordinary men. Though many try to do so, no man can serve both masters at the same time.

There is one other nexus that Ehrman and I agree upon which brings the most howls from the moderate middle. Ehrman recognizes the integral relationship between lower criticism (textual criticism) and higher criticism (that which applies scholarly science to determine which Biblical books are what they claim to be). Ehrman’s skill in the higher criticism is reflected in the body of the book. He hints that certain books in the Bible were not really authored by the person claimed in the first verses of those books. The higher critic will point out that Peter was an illiterate, Galilean fisherman and as such incapable of expressing the thoughts found in Second Peter. The textual critic will do the same on a much smaller scale, questioning verses and paragraphs within a book. While he may accept John’s authorship of the bulk of his gospel, the critic insists that one of his reasons for rejecting the authenticity of John 8:1-11 is that the words and phrases within the passage are incapable of being authored by John.

Often those who defend the traditional text are accused of blurring the line between the two sciences failing to see the subtle, yet vital, nuances that distinguish the two. Moderates will insist that the problem is not with the science, but with the attitudes and presuppositions of the scientist. [A chart that appears in Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (1986, p. 440) is typical of evangelical scholarship. While admitting that “Negative (Destructive) Criticism” is “naturalistic” and that its final authority is the “Mind of Man,” they claim that “Positive (Constructive) Criticism” is “supernaturalistic” and its final authority is the “Word of God.”] Fundamentalists and Evangelicals will, with great vehemence, repudiate higher criticism while embracing lower criticism, assuming they are two distinct creatures. Few moderates are willing to admit publicly that the four “scientific rules” of lower criticism, which give one variant more certainty than another, are used to cast doubt upon the validity of Biblical books. Some scholars would like to demote John’s Gospel and accept the Gospel According to Thomas because it predated John, it was widely distributed, and it expressed concepts that orthodox critics would have deemed dangerous and thus purposefully omitted. [External Evidence means its earliest extent fragments predate Sinaiticus by over 100 years, and it was distributed widely, found in both Egypt and Rome in the third century. Internal Evidence means the concepts are consistent with what scholars think Thomas would have written, and its existence explains why John would demean Thomas in his gospel (the doubter of the resurrection).]

Admittedly, both sciences are distinct in their personages and divisible in their realms, but Ehrman and those opposite to him agree that these disciplines are not two distant strangers; they are Siamese twins which are joined at the hip. Ehrman accepts both, I accept neither, and the moderates plead for a surgeon so that they can keep one twin and dispose of the other.

If God does not exist as Ehrman insists, the scholar is a fool to master the books of the Bible to the exclusion of other remarkable writers of antiquity.

“I continue to appreciate the Bible and the many varied messages that it contains--much as I have come to appreciate the other writings of early Christians from about the same time and soon thereafter, …and much as I have come to appreciate the writings of persons of other faiths at roughly the time, the writings of Josephus, and Lucian of Samosata, and Plutarch. All of these authors are trying to understand the world and their place in it, and all of them have valuable things to teach us.”

If, on the other hand, an all powerful God does exist and has chosen to reveal Himself through the special revelation of His written word, not only must one trust in God’s providential work in inspiration and His providential work in canonization, one must also trust in his providential work in preservation. These three doctrines are inseparable.

THE GLASS CEILING AND THE EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR

Bart Ehrman has achieved his goal; well, sort of. He is today a respected scholar in secular circles in the field of Biblical textual science. But, by his own admission, he lost his evangelicalism along the way. Is Ehrman an example of a near-success, or is the idea of being a recognized Evangelical scholar a delusional goal?

It is clear that any evangelical who proclaims a miraculous preservation of the text is eliminated from consideration as a scholar. Such a view fails to account for the differences among the texts which we have today. But ceding this point has not been sufficient to achieve scholarship status. It appears that somewhere along the line, one must accept the possibility that “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” Inerrancy is untenable to secular scholarship. But is this enough? Must one repudiate his faith in Jesus Christ as Savior as well?

In spite of its statements to the contrary, modern scholarship has its own dogmas and prejudices. While they may appear to be fair and impartial, they are hostile to Biblical belief. One demand is for “neutrality.” Textual Criticism seeks to find the ideal text that explains the existence of all others and appears to have no agenda in its variants. Westcott and Hort identified the Alexandrian texts as being our best representatives of this type. Any major departure from the “neutral” text is believed to be the result of someone with an agenda.

Modern textual critics believe that deliberate alterations are due to the secretive work of orthodox scribes trying to make the New Testament text more miraculous and conservative. In the body of the book, Ehrman will imply that the virgin-born Christ is a matter open for debate. The reason our Bibles are so specific in this matter, he believes, is because early scribes altered the manuscripts to make the matter definite. Because those who were in power agreed with this dogma these manuscripts prevailed and flourished. The “older and more reliable texts” as well as the early cults give lend credence to the idea that pre-Nicene Christianity was free-thinking when it came to Christology. Orthodox copiers allegedly used their skills to put a stop to this “confusion” and thus robbed the Bible of its “neutrality” on Christological doctrine.

Conservatism has always limited free exploration, especially when it collides with the foundational creeds. Thus, in the eyes of scholarship, conservatism has always been and will remain the enemy of neutrality.

Another tenet of scholarship is “diversity.” All voices must be heard and treated with respect. Schools like Moody, which require doctrinal agreement before one can teach and who deliberately exclude the input of unaccepted scholars are considered cultic by secular scholars. Their chief purpose is to brainwash and eliminate free thinking. This being said, the Bible is to them one of the most intolerant and narrow-minded books available today. Jesus claims to be the only way, truth, and life. Paul pronounces anathemas on any man or angel who preaches another message and tells Timothy to faithfully verify his teachings and then commit them to faithful men who will perpetuate those faithful teachings. Scholarly diversity tolerates all expression except those deemed to be intolerant. If anyone insists that no human can come to the Father apart from Jesus, they are incapable of becoming a scholar. Scholars are people who are willing to follow “the truth” wherever it may lead them. The scholar must be liberal, willing to consider and find truth in the most offensive places. The apostle John is reputed to have fled from the presence of one named Cerinthus because of his vile views regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Scholarship insists that for us to truly understand Jesus Christ, Cerinthus must have a chair at the table. For this reason, a conservative scholar is an oxymoron.

King Solomon had the world beating a path to his door. His wisdom was desired by all, both sacred and secular. There are times when God permits this to happen, but, more often than not, the path to faithful preachers and teachers is overgrown with weeds due to non-use and neglect. Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist accepted this station. Even the Son of God revealed that one greater than Solomon was walking in their midst and the scholars of that day would not receive Him. Jesus told His disciples, that the servant will never be greater than his master. If they will not receive His message, they will not receive the disciple’s message either. In this present climate, it is doubtful that any brilliant individual with an unshakable faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ and a confidence in the Bible as a life-giving book will ever become the scholar that Bart Ehrman tried to become.

WHAT WILL EDUCATED FUNDAMENTALISM DO?

The textual critic’s work is never done. In the body of his book, Ehrman documents three variants which are not presently accepted that he would like to see included in the next editions.* Even if archaeologists never unearth any additional manuscript, the task of remodeling the text of the New Testament will continue with the tools they now have. New scholars will bring new insights to the table, and the United Bible Society text will likely see a fifth, sixth and seventh edition. One day, Ehrman’s persistence may appear in the text accepted by scholars. [* The UBS text gives the present reading in Mark 1:41 a grade of D. Ehrman wants this reading removed and replaced with one that has the barest of manuscript evidence. This variant agrees with Ehrman’s view that the Jesus portrayed in Mark’s gospel was an angry and impatient man.]

Can a self-proclaimed agnostic do the “scientific” work of a textual critic without compromising the divine text? Ehrman’s admissions are nothing new, but while other textual scholars have made similar claims, none has been as candid as Ehrman. The Textual Commentary of the New Testament by Metzger has suggested multiple times that the autographs are errant. However, fundamentalism and evangelicalism have refused to sound the alarms regarding faithless scholarship. I fear that Ehrman’s admissions will continue to evoke a similar apathy from seminary-educated pastors and teachers.

If the Bible is no longer the word of God, why is Ehrman still passionate in his work? One would think that if the rug of Biblical authority had been yanked out from under his feet, that he would want nothing more to do with the Bible. The reason is simple. The Bart Ehrman of Moody days was looking for the most accurate representation of the inerrant word of God. The transformed Bart Ehrman is now looking for evidence that the originals are unreliable. Two distinct groups profess confidence in the process of textual criticism today: those with a predisposition for truth and those with a predisposition for error. In the published works where such views matter, the former is always in the minority. The former looks for a divine record while the latter searches for a man-made book.

Why would anyone trust the restoration of God’s Word to agnostics who are seeking to “restore” errors to the Bible?  If ever there was a proper application of 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1, it would seem that this is the situation. But if past performance is any indication of future results, the only separating that will take place is between those who believe in God’s miraculous power to preserve His word and those who mock such dogmatism. The thorn-in-the-flesh will continue to be any brother who preaches with confidence from a King James Bible. He will continue to be labeled cultic, intolerant, and divisive and will be dismissed as an unscholarly fool. This must be done if the Evangelical student wants to sing in harmony with the Metzgers and the Ehrmans and, in doing so, be considered a scholar by those who profess no belief in God or the Bible.