But one thing I did learn: Ehrman conceded that no essential belief of the NT
was compromised by the textual variants. That’s the main thing that I wanted to
press for at the Greer-Heard.
This is an important point that should not be missed: Many Muslims, atheists,
and anti-Christian groups have seen Ehrman as a champion for their views. But
regardless of how much doubt he may have about the wording of the original text,
or how much doubt those who believe they are following his lead have, no one can
claim Ehrman as an advocate of an original text that did not speak of the deity
of Christ or his bodily resurrection.
Let’s look at what Ehrman actually said on the subject:
My view of changing theology is that it’s very hard to change people’s
theology. I’ve found this over the last twenty-five years with Dan.
It doesn’t matter whether you interpret one passage one way, he’ll find
another passage that says what he wants it to say. If you argue about that
passage, there’s always another passage. You can get rid of three or four
passages and you can still come up with a doctrine.
Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament?
No! Does that stop people from believing it? No! Well what if you
take out the Great Commission in Matthew 28? People will still believe in
the Trinity. What if you take out some of the references in 1st
Thessalonians to the Father, Son and the Spirit? People will still believe
in the Trinity.
Doctrine is not affected by textual variants because generally doctrine
isn’t affected by these things. People have doctrines for other reasons
and it’s very hard to change people’s doctrines. So I agree that yes these
textual variants don’t effect doctrines for the most part. That’s not
though the criterion of what is significant and what is insignificant
Does anyone really think Ehrman and Wallace’s views are even remotely similar here? Nevertheless, Wallace brought up the fact that he and Ehrman “agreed” on this several times during his exchange with me. Moreover, I have no doubt that he will cite this admission for years to come in lectures, articles, interviews. Does it really help Wallace’s position?
Posts
You should have read what Wallace had to say when Carrier didn't capitalise Spirit in one of his translations.
ReplyDeleteYou would almost have thought that this textual variant compromised a Christian belief!
Wallace claimed that he wasn't sure of Ehrman's position on several points. At first, I thought this was just an excuse to make Ehrman look bad by PowerPointing several allegedly contradictory quotes from Ehrman. (Prompting Ehrman to comment "I thought we were discussing the textual reliability of the New Testament, not the textual reliability of Bart Ehrman.) After listening to the debate, I am willing to give Wallace credit for not understanding what Ehrman is saying.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to post what Ehrman say prior because I think the full context shows that he probably does agree with at least the surface statement Dan made...though obviously he doesn't think that allows us to conclude that the "1% variants" are insignificant:
ReplyDelete"Dan now has made a concluding point that no essential belief of Christianity is affected by any of these variants. I find it strange that that is somehow the criterion of judgement about what is significant (whether significant theological doctrines are changed). I don't know why thats the criterion. If we woke up tomorrow morning and found that for some reason, every Bible in the world was now lacking the gospel of Mark, the letter of Philippians, and the letter of 1 Peter. Which essential doctrines of Christianity would be changed? Not a single one. Would you say its insignifiant. No I'd say it'd be hugely significant if we didn't have these 3 books. Significance does not depend solely on whether your theology is going to change."
[continue with your quote]
Thanks for providing that David. I thought about starting the quote there but I was afraid it would get unwieldy. I think Ehrman probably does agree on the surface point, but I think his disagreement on its significance is so great that it is very hard for me to see it as an admission that supports Wallace's position.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the logical conclusion to this, since no "essential doctrine" is changed by any variant, is that only polemics are effected. Is that correct?
ReplyDeleteI mean I agree with Wallace completely but changes could effect polemics or Christian behavior as it pertains to certain subjects (whatever they might be)
I also feel that what Ehrman said is significant, "If we woke up tomorrow morning and found that for some reason, every Bible in the world was now lacking the gospel of Mark, the letter of Philippians, and the letter of 1 Peter. Which essential doctrines of Christianity would be changed? Not a single one. Would you say its insignifiant. No I'd say it'd be hugely significant if we didn't have these 3 books."
Although I agree that missing books do offer a significance in Christian polemics, it is yet amazing that understanding and knowing God through his word is not dependent upon any one book or set of teaching coming up missing whic is what the radical and extreme form critic claims.
One can yet find the message in spite of...In my opinion that can't be understanted because unlike the antisupernaturalist, I believe that God interviens in the world as he has done historically and whether we have all that was written about Jesus or not, God's intervention yet allows us to know the truth or his person, diety, and work of reconcilliation.
Thanks.