Answering Ehrman Series, Wk 5, “Ehrman’s Root Problem”

  Christmas is right around the corner and there’s a song called “Christmas Shoes” that debuted in the year 2000. I’m glad it’s played very sparingly during the Christmas season because it is a heart wrenching song. If you have never heard of it, then you’ve been living under a rock for the past twenty five years. 

The song is sung from a man’s perceptive as he stands in line to get his Christmas gifts. In front of the man is a little boy who is anxiously holding a pair of shoes. The man describes the boy as dirt from head to toe. The boy tells the man that he is buying the shoes for his mom because there’s not much time before she goes and meets Jesus and he wants her to look beautiful for when she passes. 

As he counts out his pennies, the boy ends up not having enough money to pay for the  shoes and the song grabs you to have the man pay for the dang shoes! He does and he sings this little bridge:

I knew I'd caught a glimpse of Heaven's love

As he thanked me and ran out

I knew that God had sent that little boy

To remind me what Christmas is all about

In the song, sorrow and joy are mixed together. It’s a hard song to listen to because it challenges you not to have your heartbroken. 

And it’s this idea of sorrow and joy which brings us back to our series where we’re looking at several issues that the New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, has with the orthodox Christian belief that we can trust the Bible as the word of God. Over the past four weeks we have looked at four issues that go along with Ehrman’s rejection of this central doctrine to the Christian faith.

In week one, we tackled the first question of whether Jesus was even a historical person. We looked at the evidence from an atheist historian and saw how Jesus is a well attested to person that Ehrman agrees lived. Jesus’ historicity is important because the Christian faith is not a belief in the teachings of a person who may or may not have lived. No, it’s a living trust in the God who descended to earth, took on human flesh, lived a perfect life alongside his creation, allowed that creation to crucify him, then bodily resurrected, offering eternal life to whoever would place their trust in him. If Jesus wasn’t historical real, then the Christian faith is false from the get-go. But since he is, we then began to look at the collection of documents, known as the New Testament, to see if we can trust what it says about him.

In week two we began looking at the evidence for the New Testament. Dividing our approach between the external and the internal evidence. From looking at the external evidence we saw how the documents that make up the New Testament can be traced to the time of the people who were said to have written them. And compared to other well attested to ancient documents, the New Testament is earlier in surviving copies, to the original times they were written. After looking at the external evidences, we could concluded that what we have as our New Testament did indeed come from the time of Jesus’ eyewitnesses. 

Then in week three we looked at the internal evidences. We looked at the supposed errors that scholars like Ehrman point to, seeing how there are roughly 6,600 root errors to consider. 99% of those were grammatical or not very significant, and out of those, the 1%, did not change Christian teaching. What we concluded was that the New Testament is the word of God, inerrant in that it is trustworthy and authoritative, and infallible in that it communicates God’s purpose of pointing us to his salvation.

Finally last week we addressed the question, what about the other books that didn’t make the cut. We first looked at the criteria that the early Church used in its process of receiving and recognizing what was inspired works. Then we looked at three categories of where these works fell into. The first was Heretical, which were those that didn’t match any of the criteria, and went going against well established teaching. Reasonably Rejected was the second category, where there were books that were not necessarily heretical, but they over emphasized minute issues of the Church, and they were obviously written well after the time periods they said they were covering. Finally, there were those documents that are of Good Use which the early Church read, didn’t find authoritative, but can still be of use to us today to understand the world of the New Testament. 

However, through all of this, we have to understand that none of this is actually why Ehrman rejects the orthodox Christian faith. No, everything we covered in the last four weeks are Ehrman’s scholarly attempts to undermine other people’s faith, because of a deeper issue he has with God.

In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman shares the real reason he left the Christian faith, “There came a time when I left the faith. This was not because of what I learned through the historical criticism, but because I could no longer reconcile my faith in God with the state of the world that I saw all around me …. There is so much senseless pain and misery in the world that I came to find it impossible to believe that there is a good and loving God who is in control, despite my knowing all of the standard rejoinders that people give …. In my case, historical criticism led me to question my faith. Not just its superficial aspects but its very heart. Yet it was the problem of suffering, not a historical approach to the Bible, that led me to agnosticism.” 

And there it is. The issues we have covered over the last four weeks, the issues that Ehrman says local churches do not talk about, are not the issues that Ehrman points to as breaking his faith. Though these were issues that soften his faith, it was the problem of suffering that truly broke Ehrman. 

And that’s understandable. The issue of, why does God allow evil, is one of the most difficult issues of this world. Why is there death? Why is there pain? Why do children suffer? Why do animals suffer? If God is good, then why is there evil? If God is all powerful, why doesn’t he stop it? 

There is a deep theological and philosophical conversation about this very question that in one sermon we’re not going to be able to answer. So for this final sermon, I’m going to give you two parts of the problem and how I deal with the problem of evil.

First, there’s the theoretical problem of evil. Philosophers such as David Hume, an eighteenth century Scottish philosopher, and others like him have proposed a philosophical framework for the argument as follows:

If there is a wholly good and all-powerful God, then there should be no evil or suffering. However, there is evil and suffering therefore there is no wholly good and all-powerful God. Even if there were such a being as God he is either not wholly good, or he is not all-powerful.

Over the course of theological and philosophical debates four stances have been taken by theists in response to this issue: 1) The first stance is that, evil is necessary as a counter point to good. This means that good cannot exist without there being evil. The emblem of the Yin and Yang capture this belief. 2) The second stance is that evil is necessary as to bring about good. This sees evil, not as a counterpart to good, but a means about which God brings good to his creation. Think of the passages of Scripture that speak of suffering bringing about character, such as Romans 5:3, where Paul writes, “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance.” 3) The third stance is that the universe is better with at least some evil, than it would be without it. From this stance one can make the argument that you can only see the stars when the light isn’t shining. Or you only know what courage is when faced with something to fear. 4) The final stance is that evil comes from human will. It isn’t that God created evil, but that human beings create evil out of their own will to do so. 

Out of the four stances, I hold to the last. First, I do this because I do not see in the Scriptures a good God who is vexed by evil. Evil is not an equal to the God of the Bible, so it cannot be the first. Secondly, though I do see the God of the Bible bringing good out of evil, it doesn’t answer the issue of what is the root cause of evil. If this were the case, then God wouldn’t be good for he created evil, and Scripture rejects this, as God only works in goodness. The third stance is similar to the second and I believe it holds some weight in helping us understand why we live in the universe we do and not a perfect one, but again it doesn’t get to the root of evil, and again the blame ends with God. Finally, it is the will of God’s creatures where the Scriptures rest the problem of evil. It is from our actions that evil and suffering sprout. The Bible calls this root sin, and spends the course of its pages to show how God works through our evil to bring about his good.

This is the theoretical problem of evil. We can discuss it, we can argue it, but the reality is, when suffering comes to our door, these might give us a foundation from where to work from, but they can be empty words. 

We see this in the life of Job. When suffering came to Job’s door, the theoretical broke upon the concrete pain he was feeling. His friends proceeded to give him the theoretical answers, but his concrete pain and their glib responses were not what he needed to hear. 

Its the case of Job that brings us to the practical question of evil, and this is where the idea of suffering really comes to a head. Does it matter where evil comes from, God or humans,  when a mother has a miscarriage? Does it matter when a family member dies in a car crash by a drunk driver? Does it matter when a tsunami hits a beach and hundreds, if not thousands of people, die in its wake? The question of, Why God, comes in moments like this and wrecks us. If God is good why did he allow the miscarriage to happen? If God is all-powerful, why did he not stop that man from drinking? If God is all-knowing, why didn’t he foresee where people were and redirect the wave?

The practical issue of suffering is what the Bible deals with most directly. It doesn’t give glib reasons as to answer all the hard questions, rather it rests in verses like Romans 12:15, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” Or Galatians 6:2, “Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Or Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:35-36, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’” 

The Bible doesn’t answer all the theoretical questions nor answers all the why’s of why why evil and suffering occurs. Job, through forty-two chapters never found out why he suffered. However, the Bible does seek to answer the practical question of suffering, which is to love people in their pain as we love Jesus who suffered for us. God calls his people to sit and cry with those who are hurting. We are to have compassion and carry the burdens of each other.

Here’s the reality, there’s suffering in the world, the Bible doesn’t shy away from it, but rather shows it for all its horridness. Those like Ehrman look at differing and say, because there’s suffering there is no God. But remove God from the equation and you’re still stuck with the problem. There’s still suffering. 

Yet if the God of the Bible is true that means suffering was not brought about by him, but by his creatures. It is us who have caused the suffering of the world through our actions. And there is such a deep spiritual connection between our actions and things like future generations and natural evils, that the evil we cause through sin can bring suffering to those we’ll never even know. Yet, what we also see from the God of the Bible is his actions to minimize the effects of sin, and who has put in place a plan to end all evil and suffering. 

Ehrman looks at the God of the Bible and says, there’s suffering so he doesn’t exist. I look at suffering and reply, because it exists I trust there is a God.

Today, we haven’t answered the question of evil, we simply addressed it, but my trust in God’s inerrant and infallible word directs me to trust a God who cares for the suffering of his creation, and I hold to this great teaching from the Book of Hebrews, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (v.4:15).” God has met us in our suffering through the person of Jesus, and desires to be there for us. Let us therefore draw close to him to find his peace in the suffering.

My challenge for you this week is to take the various stances I gave to you and wrestle with the problem of evil. Bring these stances to the pages of Scriptures and see which one best is answered by the God who spoke this universe into being.

Let us be a people who grows in our trust in the Lord, and when evil assails us or those around, we run closer to him in it. Amen.

Answering Ehrman Series, Wk 4, “There’s Reason for Rejection”

  Remember going to the video rental store, like Blakcbuster, or Hollywood Video? In my home town, had a little local shop that was a combination video rental and comic book store. It was on my way home from school, and I’d stop in just to see the latest comic book or movie release.

In those stores, they had all the videos separated by genre. They had family movies, action flicks, horror, and whatever other genres there were. The guy who owned the place was always moving movies around, as new ones came in, or people would pick up one up and move it to the wrong section. I mean, you can’t have Star Wars next to A Fist Full of Dollars. And you shouldn’t have Halloween next to the Lion King. Genres help us automatically understand what to expect from books, albums, or movies. My dad once told me that he went to see Blazing Saddles in the movie theater because he was expecting a cowboy movie in the vain of John Wayne; boy was he surprised. 

But its this idea of understanding the genre of something to see if it fits what we’re looking for, that brings us back to our fall apologetics series, where we’re seeking to answer some of the issues that Bart Ehrman has with the orthodox belief in the trusting the Bible as God’s inspired word. 

We’ve done this by first showing how Jesus is a historical person, because if Jesus wasn’t historical, then anything about him would be false. If he wasn’t a real life person, then the Christian faith is false, because it rests on a physical death and resurrection. But since we can show that Jesus is historical, we can look at the writings about him and see if they are accurate in their portray.

Then we began looking at the New Testament documents to see if we can trust them to be what was originally written by those who claimed to have seen Jesus. We did this by first looking at the external evidences. When looking at the manuscript data and comparing it to other significant historical manuscripts, we saw how much closer to the original sources the New Testament is to other affirmed documents. This gives us a good basis on which to trust that those who are said to have written the New Testament actually did.

Finally last week, we looked at some of the internal evidences as to why we can trust the New Testament to be accurate. We covered the supposed errors and found that even the 1% of errors that are theological, do not change primary Christian doctrines. Then we looked at some supposed discrepancies and contradictions. We came to an understating that there are discrepancies in that each writer gives us a fuller picture of events, but there are no contradictions. This led us to understanding that God’s word is inerrant in that it is trustworthy and authoritative, and that it is infallible in the purpose of communicating the way to salvation. 

However, Ehrman has two more issues, and the one we’re coving to today is about why certain books were included and others were not. Ehrman writes in Jesus, Interrupted, “If God inspired certain books in the decades after Jesus died, how do I know that the later church fathers chose the right books to be included in the Bible … There were some who accepted the Gospel of Peter and some who rejected the Gospel of John … Some Christians rejected the three Pastoral Epistles … others accepted the Epistle of Barnabas … If God was making sure that his church would have the inspired books of Scripture … why were there such heated debates and disagreements …?”

The issue Ehrman brings up here is that of canonicity. Why do we have the 66 books of the Bible we do and were there others that should have been included?

First, to clarify, when were talking about the canon of Scripture, what we’re referring to is, “… the term … most closely associated with the collection of books that the church has recognized as the written Word of God … Although the various Christian traditions are not in full agreement … at the very least all agree that the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are canonical and therefore authoritative."

When we’re talking about the canon of Scripture, we’re talking about those books that are considered authoritative to Christian faith. Not books that are helpful, or interesting, but authoritative to what it means to be Christian, as opposed to any other belief system. 

The process of canonizing the books of the Bible, wasn’t done by the Church as if their purpose was to pick what best suited them and make that the standard. As BB. Warfield states, “The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the apocalypse, about A.D. 98.”

Before we start looking at books that were not included in the canon of Scripture, we need to understand the criteria that the early Church used. First, the document had to be written by an Apostle or someone closely associated with them. That means there had to be a strong agreement that those whose names were associated with the writing, actually wrote it. This was done through attestations by disciples of those who were the writers. We see this most notably with Papias a disciple of the John the Apostle who points to which writers wrote which books early in the second century. We’ve already shown that the New Testament manuscripts were written during the lifetimes of the Apostles and so have a strong case for them to have written their works.

The second criteria, was that the writing had to be consistent with already revealed Scripture. In other words, it couldn’t contradict the Old Testament, nor couldn’t contradict clear teachings of Jesus. As an example, if it was established that Jesus was resurrected physically, which First Corinthians 15:3-5, one of the oldest hymns of the faith reveals, then anything that disagrees with that is not considered correct. 

The last criteria, is that it has to be agreed upon my the majority of the Church. One individual, or even one congregation cannot put forth a document, that none of the congregations have ever seen nor heard of. The Church as a whole has to agree. Ehrman states that there were heated disagreements, yet every tradition and denomination that holds to the orthodox faith, agrees that at least these 66 books are authoritative. In fact the issues that Ehrman’s describing come on when talked about the extra-biblical books.

So what does this look like historically? Going back to our timeline. We have already seen that by 180AD, we have the Moratoria Canon, which has at least 22 of the 27 books we now consider canon. Another major canon list is by Athanasius in 367AD, and the Council of Hippo in 397AD. This last council is where Church historians consider the canon to be finalized. So, the documents which could be included in the Bible, must come prior to this date. As any later and we know for a fact that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses. 

So what about the writings prior to this?

Personally, I place them into three categories: The first category is heretical. By this I mean, those books that fail, not just at not being written during the lifetime of the eye witnesses, but also fully contradict established Scripture. These would be your Gnostic writings of the one to three hundreds AD. The list includes, but is not limited to: The Gospel of Egyptians, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Pistis Sophia, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocryphon of John, the Second Treatise of the Great Sett, the Hypostasis of Archons, and the Tripartite Tractate. These present a non-Jewish Jesus. He’s presented more as a Greek philosopher and not as a Jewish Rabbi. In other words, heretical texts change the very person of Jesus, so that he is no longer accurate in a historical sense of a Jewish Rabbi and in his Jewish teachings.

The second category are those writings that are interesting, but they’re reasonably rejected. What I mean by this is that they are not out right heresy, but they’re not consistent in theology. Two that fit into this category are The Acts of Thecla and Third Corinthians. Thecla is a story of a woman who supposedly met Paul and became a believer. However, there are a lot of inconsistencies in theology, examples being that she baptized herself, something the early Church didn’t do, and the idea of virginity was overtly important. Then the historical timing is off. Not only was it written too late, but the author is unknown. On the other hand, Third Corinthians, if a part of the Acts of Paul, which is a later collection of works, was written by Tertullian. Tertullian was a theologian who wrote as an homage to Paul. But it is still too late to be included as an eyewitness.

The final category is Good for Christian use. By this I mean that, though they were not written by an eyewitness to Jesus, they are still insightful for Christian belief. Three of these would be the Epistle of Barnabas, which was written between 70-135AD, and was connected to the Barnabas of Acts by Clement of Alexandria; though that is its only attestation. It was rejected as being a part of canon because it focused more on explaining Jewish theology than on the redemption of Jesus. But it’s still useful to understanding the Jewish world of the first century. Then there is the Didache, which was written between 70-110AD. This work was said to be from the teachings of the twelve, however it would be better understood as an early Church handbook on how to conduct Church practices; such as: baptism and the Lord’s supper. Finally, there is the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written around 155AD, by an unknown author. It’s a story of a Christian freed slave and how he implements Christian teachings into life. It’s a good story to show how Christian ethics works in the world, but it’s light on the theology of Jesus. 

And here’s the problem with Ehrman’s issue of why we have the canon we do. Ehrman complains that the manuscripts we have are not the originals, yet we can trace the linage of the New Testament back to the time period in which they are said to have been written. In addition to this, the New Testament speaks of things in ways that first century Jewish people would. The language and customs are rooted in the first century. We have fragments from within twenty-five years of the death of the last apostle. We have overlapping canon lists and attestations of what the early Church considered authoritative. The Church did not see themselves as creating canon, but receiving it from God.

If these other documents were included, Ehrman would rightfully point out that they were too late to be eyewitness accounts. That the second to fourth century works were not Jewish in customs or language, which means that they presented a non-historical Jesus. Yet, because Ehrman simply wants to dilute people’s trust in the canon of Scripture, he points to writings that he himself agrees would not be acceptable. On Bart Ehrman’s official website, one of his article contributors, Keith Long, writes this, “The New Testament canon selection committee opted to go with a historical understanding of Jesus’ life, a theological understanding of his death, and a physical understanding of his resurrection …. Another factor may be the dating of these texts. Most are believed to be from the mid to late second century or later. The age of these texts all but certifies that none of them could have been written by people from Jesus’ inner circle or his contemporaries .… As for the authorship? No, Thomas, Philip, and Mary Magdalene did not survive two to three centuries after Jesus! But their legacies certainly did for many people in the early Church.”

So for the third straight week, we see that, though Ehrman popularizes a position that questions why these other works were not included in the canon of Scripture, academically he embraces the reality that these other works do not hold up like the New Testament documents do. 

This goes back to helping us trust that God has persevered his word, for what he wanted to communicate throughout the centuries in what we call the Bible. Through war, emperors, scribes, and all the sin that’s there, God has brought us a firm foundation on which to seek him for salvation. And we can be assured what the eyewitness saw is what they communicated in writing, and what we have today. 

For my challenge for you is this, I have printed off the shorter of the three good ancient documents, called the Didache. It’s out in the foyer. If you’d like to see what was being shared by the early Church, take a copy and read through it this week. It’s an interesting read and has insight into how the early Church conducted things like worship services. Then take time to seek God in praise for keeping his word from his eyewitnesses to today. 

And next week, we’ll finish up this series by looking at the heart issue that Barth Ehrman really has.

But for now, let us be a people who seek the truth that God has reveled in his word. Amen.

Answering Ehrman Series, Wk 3, “No, the Bible Isn’t Corrupt - Part 2”

  Have you ever had that experience of a person telling you a story that didn’t make sense, but then someone else who was a part of the story was able to fill in the details which helped you understand what the first person was saying? This happened, and still happens with my kids. The younger they were the fewer important details were given and so my wife had to fill in what I need to know to understand what they were saying.

This idea of filling in the blanks is just one thing we’re going to cover as we jump back into our Fall Apologetics series. This year we’re looking at some of Barth Ehrman’s issues with how the orthodox Christian faith looks at the Bible as it’s rule to live by.

We started this series by establishing that Jesus is a historical person. The reason why this is important is because Jesus’ coming in flesh is central to the message of salvation. If Jesus wasn’t real then none of what we’re talking about matters. Christianity stands not only on the words of Jesus, but his historical actions. 

Then last week we took some time and looked at some external evidence for why we can trust the New Testament. We started by looking at the dates of the New Testament writings and their corresponding earliest manuscript dates, comparing them to other historical figures and their earliest manuscript dates. We showed how the New Testament is one of the best, in time, set of established historical documents.  

This brings us to now looking at the internal evidence as to why we can trust the New Testament. Now, remember last week, how I said we were going to get into the weeds, well here we go.

So what is Ehrman’s issue with the internal evidence of the New Testament? Ehrman writes in Jesus, Interrupted, “When students are first introduced to the historical, as opposed to the a devotional, study of the Bible, one of the first things they are forced to grapple with is that the biblical text, whether Old Testament or New Testament, is chock full of discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable. Some of these discrepancies are simple details where one book contradicts what another says about a minor point — the number of soldiers in an army, the year a certain king began his reign, the details of an apostle’s itinerary. In some cases seemingly trivial points of difference can actually have an enormous significance for the interpretation of a book or reconstruction of the history of ancient Israel or the life of the historical Jesus. And then there are instances that involve major issues, where one author has one point of view on an important topic, (How was the world created? Why do the people of God suffer? What is the significance of Jesus’ death?), and another author has another. Sometimes these views are simply different from one another, but at other times they are directly at odds.”

Ehrman’s issue is that he argues that there are discrepancies and outright contradictions within the New Testament text. So, as we saw last week, for Ehrman, it’s not really an issue from the manuscript history point of view where his problem with the New Testament really lies, it’s actually an internal issue. 

Now, we don’t have time to tackle every one of the discrepancies or issues Ehrman presents in several of his books, but we’ll look at a few, which I believe show a pattern of why Ehrman is mistaken.

Let’s first talk about the manuscript discrepancies, because this issue bridges the gap between last week and this week. We know that what we have in the New Testament some of, if not the, closes manuscripts to the historical event in which it describes.

But the question arises, what about changes, additions, and subtractions from these manuscripts? Can we be sure that we have what was originally written?

Daniel B. Wallace is the executive director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. This center’s job is to photograph anything related to the New Testament manuscripts. It is through this center’s work that many unknown manuscripts have been found. 

Wallace, in a 2013 article, stated that the then current estimate of manuscript errors was around 400,000. Today, that estimate is upwards of 450,000. Now that seems like a huge number. However, Wallace explains how scholars have come up with that number. 

See, back in the 1960s a scholar by the name of Neil R. Lightfoot wrote a book entitled, How We Got the Bible. In that book, Lightfoot came up with an estimate of 200,000 manuscript errors.

The way Lightfoot came to this conclusion was by cataloging an error in a manuscript and then counting that same error in every other manuscript that had it. In other words, if the word “John” was spelled J-O-H-N in an old manuscript, any manuscript that spelled it “J-O-N” would be counted wrong. Another example is a phrase like, “Jesus loves Mary.” If that was in the oldest manuscripts, then if in later manuscripts it was phrased as, “Mary is a person Jesus loved,” then that would be considered an error. 

Calculating this way, Wallace revamps Lightfoot’s original estimate to be more than 20 million errors. However, Wallace states that in actually, there are only about 6,577 root errors in the roughly 5,550 New testament documents. If we take those two numbers we get about 1.2 errors per manuscript. When put in the light of how many words are on average in a New Testament book, we get about .02 errors per New Testament book. 

If you’ve read any of my books, then you know there’s more errors in those, than what we find in the manuscripts of the New Testament.

By Ehrman’s own admission he writes in an article entitled, “Aren’t there 400,000 Variants or Errors in the New Testament?,” “In this two-part response, we have covered four categories so far: ‘blunders’, ‘unviable readings’, ‘orthographic variations’, and ‘minor textual variants’. In these four categories, we have covered about 99% of the 400,000 variants. As a textual critic, these are the kinds of things that I try to convince my students are important. Needless to say, I have a hard time persuading them to pay attention to these four types of variants. My students will look at the field and the kind of textual variant, and consider them to be insignificant.”

The reason why his students consider these errors insignificant is because they are. None of these errors in the 99% change anything about the text theologically. Taking Wallace’s number of 6,577, there are only about 66 errors that are theologically pressing.

And most of these are actually brought up in your Bibles. An example of this is if you open up to the Gospel of Mark and go to chapter 16. When you get to verse 8, you’ll read something like this in most modern translations, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include: 16:9-20.” Most modern translations let you know when these discrepancies happen and most modern versions adjust for them, while still footnoting the difference. This happens when a verse which is in older translations is regulated to a footnote in newer translations.

The two big discrepancies that are still being debated in scholarly work are John 4, and Revelation 13:18. John 4 is the story of the woman at the well. It has a lot in common with Luke’s writing style, so scholars debate if it wasn’t originally connected to Luke’s Gospel. However, as we saw last week, John and Luke could have been writing at the same time. Luke might have even interviewed John. So Luke might have written the story down, and John simply used Luke’s rendition of it. But the story is consistent in how John presents Jesus, and fits perfectly in his Gospel, so there’s no issue. 

The other discrepancy is Revelation 13:18, where the mark of the beast is most known at 666, but there are a few old manuscripts that have it as 616. Does that impact theology? A little bit, is it enough to change the course of the Christian faith? Not even close. That’s why these issues, even the theological ones, are insignificant.

Now that we have the errors and discrepancies of the New Testament manuscripts understood, we can turn to what is Ehrman’s real problem. Ehrman concedes that we have what the original writers intended, but is what is there actually from God? Ehrman doesn’t think so, because he believes the Bible is riddled with discrepancies and contradictions. Let’s take a couple of his examples and see if he’s correct.

For our two examples, we’re going to look at the birth and death of Jesus. First his birth. Ehrman writes of Jesus’ birth narrative, “The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew.”

Here’s Ehrman’s problem with the text: The narratives are not identical, for Ehrman, this means that there is a discrepancy and therefore they cannot be truthful. But here’s one of Ehrman’s catch 22 moments. If the narratives were identical, then the argument would be that the writers colluded. This is actually an issue scholars like Ehrman bring up when talking about the Synoptic Gospels. The fact that they’re different lends credibility to there being more to the story than one story teller could tell.

Let’s compare Matthew and Luke’s account and see if we can understand what Ehrman cannot. 

Matthew begins with Joseph’s genealogy, we then get an announcement of the birth to Jospeh, the adopted father. Then we are told that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, and within an estimated two year span, wise men from the east show up. Jospeh receives a dream to escape because Herod is sending soldiers to kill babies. After Herod’s death, Jesus’ family moves to Nazareth.  

The focus of Matthew’s opening is very Jewish in that the focus is on legacy, connecting Jesus to David and Abraham. Matthew also emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, both in where he is born, and who comes to pay homage or worship to him. We’re told that the current king Herod tries to kill him, because Jesus is the true king of the Jews. Matthew focuses on certain elements from Jesus’ brith that will heighten other events later in his life.

Now Luke. This Gospel begins with John the Baptist’s brith announcement. Luke connects Jesus to the Servant of Isaiah and so shows how this connection begins even before Jesus is announced. In this way Luke is showing how God is preparing the way for the Messiah. Then we get Jesus’ announcement, but this time it’s to Mary. Whereas we follow Jospeh’s story in Matthew, Luke is having us follow Mary’s. Mary then visits Elizabeth and sings her song. Eventually we’re given another genealogy, this time, most likely through Mary. Following this, John and then Jesus are born. For Jesus, Angels announce his arrival that very night to shepherds. Luke focuses in on where Jesus has come from and to whom, the least of these, Jesus has come to. Jesus then fulfills Old Testament practices and returns to Nazareth.

Matthew and Luke present, not conflicting stories but pieces of the whole. Matthew moves us through the birth narrative pretty quickly to focus on Jesus’ kingship. Luke on the other hand focuses in on the moments leading up to, and including, Jesus actual birth. If we had one, we would have enough to understand where Jesus came from and why he has come.  However, with both read together, we have a greater picture of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. How many times have people said, too bad we didn’t know more of Jesus’ life? Well the reality is, we have a lot more than most.

So there’s no contradictory elements in the two birth narratives, but instead, both give us a fuller picture of the first two years of Jesus’ life.

Now let’s look at the death narrative, or what is usually referred to as Jesus’ Passion. Looking at the Passion narratives in Mark and Luke, Ehrman writes, “It is hard to stress strongly enough the differences between these two portrayals.” Ehrman has three key points of difference in these Passion narratives. First, Jesus is quiet throughout Mark’s passion narrative, whereas in Luke he speaks. Second, in Mark, Jesus is suffering and in Luke he’s triumphant. Third, Ehrman questions, when was the curtain torn?

Looking at the first point, we can see that Jesus does speak more in Luke than he does in Mark. In Mark Jesus speaks two times, once to Pilate (v.15:2), and once on the cross (v.34). In Luke, Jesus speaks five times: once to Pilate (v.23:3), once to some women in the crowd on his way to the cross (v.31), and three times on the cross, saying “Forgive them…(v.34)” “…with me in paradise (v.43),” and “Father into your hands …(v.46)

Now Mark does include that Jesus made a loud cry, but doesn’t give any words. This loud cry, as Luke tells it, would be connected to Jesus’ words, “Father, into your hands…” However, Mark doesn’t say that Jesus was completely silent. In keeping with tradition, Mark is writing from Peter’s witness. Because of this there are two interpretations as to why we get a difference of how many times Jesus speaks. First, Peter at this point isn’t very close to the cross, so he might not have heard everything Jesus spoke. So when preaching, Peter shares his testimony of what Jesus said, though he might know of more. Secondly, Peter is preaching these events and not covering every detail. Sermons are not meant to be detailed written account, but rather heard. That means you focus in on what you believe matters fro your current audience.

Either way, what is important is, and something Ehrman doesn’t address, is the fact that what is said isn’t contradictory. In fact, where Mark and Luke share the same words of Jesus, their the exact same. To Pilate Jesus states, “You have said so.” So like the brith narrative, we do not have contradictory elements, but rather a fuller picture.

But what about Jesus’s portray. Ehrman claims the in Mark, Jesus is portrayed as merely suffering, but in Luke he is triumphant in suffering. The reason Ehrman makes this claim is because of what Jesus says in Mark 15:34, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Like many people in the crowd at the cross, Ehrman interprets this as Jesus crying out to God as if God has forsaken him. Now as Ehrman briefly notes, these words open Psalm 22. However, Ehrman doesn’t go into detail about why Jesus might have quoted Psalm 22. 

See Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. If you read it, you’re going to read something very interesting, it’s a Psalm that poetically describes crucifixion. It’s almost as if Jesus isn’t crying out in agony because God has abandoned him, but rather, pointing his disciples a final time to the Scriptures being fulfilled. In other words, this a triumphant moment, in the middle of Jesus’ pain he is revealing that the scorn of the cross was meant by God to bring about salvation. Instead of ending in agony, Jesus is ending in victory, showing that what he was going through was prophesied hundreds of years before. Again, no contradiction, but a fuller understanding of the events of the cross.

Finally, what about the curtain being torn. Luke has the curtain torn before Jesus dies, but Ehrman states that Mark has it being torn afterward. So which is it? They can’t both be right. Well, let’s read the two passages. Luke 23:44-46 reads, “It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last.” There it is, Luke states that the curtain was torn before Jesus died. 

Turning to Mark, we read in 15:33-34 & 37-38, “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ … And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.” Looks like Ehrman’s right, Mark has the curtain torn after Jesus died. Except there’s a problem. The word ‘And.’ Does it mean “this then that” or does it mean “one event occurred and another event occurred?” The Greek word there is ‘kai’ (kahee) which means “also or both.”

Mark is giving us information about what is also happening when Jesus dies. Both Mark and Luke have the same time frame, “… at the ninth hour ….” It is at this hour that Jesus dies and the curtain is torn. The focus of Mark is Jesus’ death, but he also wants us to know that the curtain was torn at his death too. However, Luke shares how Jesus prophesied the coming destruction of the temple, so Luke links what’s happening at the temple and Jesus’ death. In other words, they both tell us the same thing, but different in sharing the events in such a way to make a point within their specific Gospel.

If we understand the point of view of each writer we can understand the way in which they present Jesus’ life. Mark is writing from Peter’s sermons. Peter is sharing the point of Jesus’ death, but adds, “and hey this curtain tore at the same time.” However Luke states in his opening that his purposes is to share the events by way of the witnesses. Mark is telling a sermonized short version of Jesus’ life, whereas Luke is trying to tell a more in order historical event. 

Again, it’s not that they are contradictory, but that through multiple accounts of Jesus’ life, we get a better understanding. Just like when a husband and wife tell the same story, you get a fuller picture of what happened. 

What we have just done is what’s called harmonizing the passages. That means we look at the passages and see how they fit together as an overarching story. But what does Ehrman think of such a practice? He writes on the subject, “When readers then throw both Matthew and John into the mix, they get an even more confused and conflated portrayal of Jesus, imagining wrongly that they have constructed the envoys as they really happened … It gives a fifth story, a story that is completely unlike any of the canonical four, a fifth story that in effect rewrites the Gospels, producing a fifth Gospel … The historical approach to the Gospels allows each author’s voice to be heard and refuse to conflate them into some king of mega-Gospel that flattens the emphases of each one.” 

I don’t agree with Ehrman on this point. Instead, I believe there should be a two-fold approach. First, we let each of the writers tell us what they want to say. We understand their theological purposes as to why they compile the work they do. This allows for the many nuances of Jesus’ life to be revealed. Matthew wants us to understand Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Mark wants us to answer the question, “Who do we say Jesus is?” Luke wants as tidy a historical record as he can produce. John wants us to know why he calls himself the beloved disciples and so shows us Jesus on a personal level. And we could go on through the whole of Scripture understanding each of the writers purposes for their work.

The second approach is to then take these witnesses and understand the overarching life story of Jesus and the story of God. Connecting the pieces to the fuller story like a detective at a crime scene. No one book can hold every piece of the puzzle, but the more we have the better picture is seen. In fact, John, in his Gospel, touches on this very idea when he writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (20:30-31)”

In the case of the Gospels, Ehrman believes we shouldn’t be creating a fifth Gospel to figure out things like the life of Jesus. However, you might remember in our first week, I quoted Ehrman as stating, “I talked about why historians have problems using the Gospels as historical sources, in view of their discrepancies and the fact that they were written decades after the life of Jesus … I also talk about how scholars have devised methods for reconstructing what probably happen in the life Jesus …” In other words, Ehrman has himself spent his life creating a fifth Gospel, a Gospel that he believes is truer than what is given in the New Testament. Again, he imposes rules for others that he doesn’t use for himself. There’s just no way to win with him.

Finally, I said last week that we would come to a conclusion on the concept of inerrancy. I want to add to that the idea of infallibility. First, there are two definitions of inerrancy. The first is the popular, and by that I mean the widely held definition, but not scholarly definition. This definition usually looks at the English Bible in your hands, and states, every word is right. However, by this definition, what happens when the number of the beast isn’t actually 666, it’s actually 616? Or what if the longer ending of Mark wasn’t a part of the original manuscripts? For a lot of people that means that the Bible is wrong and isn’t inerrant.

But this isn’t actually the true concept of inerrancy. The definition that theologians uses is, “… the term … refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of the Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to salvation.” The Bible is inerrant in how we are to conduct our lives to it. This is based, not on your translation, but on the original writings. We might have errors in some manuscripts, but scholars can trace those errors through a manuscript’s linage and find out where the error came from. Yes, there are about 66 points in Scripture that scholars debate on, but even those do not change orthodox Christian faith. 

This is where the term infallibility comes in. Again the theological definition is, “The Bible will not fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way of salvation to humans.” And it hasn’t. If you are a faithful follower Jesus today, it’s because the word of God has not failed in bringing you the message of salvation. The Bible is a sure foundation to how God has spoke and continues to speak to people, bringing them into salvation, and into greater trust of who he is. I hope that these last two weeks have given you a greater trust in the Scriptures and the work that God has performed in preserving, even though finite and sin compromised humans, his message in it.