How Biblical Discrepancies Can Be Theologically Liberating for a Christian

Thank you for your response Dr Ehrman,

Well help me understand your views Dr Ehrman, because I am a little confused, not only have I read several of your published works and watched many of your debates, but you have written an excellent Article titled “Do Most Manuscripts Have the Original Text” which is published on your blog that clearly outlines the issues that I have been challenging, Using your Article as reference, let me help clarify for you what positions I have been challenging you on in my posts.

First, I would like to commend this Article for truley identifying the key issues in the debate:

Here I have listed several points from your Article – that you identify as the problem
⦁ Now in addressing the problem, you identified that of the thousands of New Testament Texts in the Greek that we have available, we have 94% of these manuscripts that are from the 9th century and later, and you also identify a goups of fragments and texts that are dated between 2nd & 4th century.
⦁ After grouping these manuscripts you state that ” its the late medieval manuscripts that cohere together, whereas early manuscripts tend to be different, and cohere better with each other than with the later manuscripts.
⦁ You then ask an a couple of excellect questions “So which manuscripts contain the original text…the 992 majority or the 8 early? Thats the problem”… If they’re earlier, aren’t they more likely the original?”

So Dr Ehrman, in my previous post I made the same basic observations when I stated “The underlying issue that my questions are stemming from is this idea that these so called earlier texts of New Testament (i.e. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, P75, P66, and about 40 or so others) are closer representatives to the texts used by the Independent Greek Apostolic churches prior to the 4th century; and that these so called later texts (which I refer as the textual traditions of the Apostolic Greek, Latin, Churches) are referred to as “secondary” in origin”
In my response above its clear that I’m challenging your assertion that the “earliest texts are more likely to be the originals”

In addition, Dr Ehrman, in this same article your raise a question against the Majority Text Position that they “still have to explain why the earliest surviving manuscripts have a TEXT DIFFERENT from the majority text” Why does the DIFFERENT TEXT show up early, and consistently early rather than consistently later?

It is from this statement in your article that I have continually asked why didn’t anyone notice that a different text was being introduced into the Apostolic Churches, when from the 2nd Century to the 4th Century, changes to the biblical texts were noticed both minor and major. (e.g, Marcion text, Gauis Testimony, Jerome’s Vulgate, Lucans Septuigent)

So Dr Ehrman, when your asserting that there was a change of the text away from the original, all I have been trying to ask is how was the text created? How did it come into being? Who was involved, what was the process, when and where did it happen, and why did it take over 1400 years for anyone to notice?

I thought as in expert in this field, you could demonstrate the “Who”, “What”, Where, When, Why and How a specific text at Antioch in 385 A.D preached on by Chrysostom, in which the the non thoroughly redacted text in an non consious way moved away from the original. This is why I quoted Fee (I did personally read his response to Hodges) who stated “CHRYSOSTOM TEXT is still closer to the ‘majority text’ than it is to ANY TEXT OF THE SECOND OR THIRD CENTURY.” This is a very simple question that you seem fain to answer Dr Ehrman.

Now I agree with you position that there are many fundamentalists who hold the Majority Text Position that use conservative religious presuppositions as an argument; this is a phony argument and cannot be used outside their inner circles, cause your right, its not historical.

I also agree that simply because the majority of texts supports a common text, it still doesn’t mean it’s the original, for these earlier texts could have been the majority in their day.

By the way, I wasn’t trying to be insulting regarding my question of knowing Barbara and Aland (I meant to ask if you ever met them?)

But Dr Ehrman, you have to be historical as well. The quotes by Aland and Birdsall appear to say, they have no idea how the Byzantine text came into being; other than, they don’t like it. You haven’t historically proved that the Apostolic Churches Text did change.

This is why I challenge you with Jerome’s empirical observation that he found the PA in many Greek and Latin manuscripts, to demonstrate the absurdity of these so called interpolation theories. This is why I used your quote in my introduction to the PA, making the point that even children can realize how silly this sounds

Now, in my videos, I have challenged these so called earlier texts Dr Ehrman; because they are not what your making them appear to be; You cannot prove that the Texts of Vaticanus and Sinaticus came from the official Greek Apostolic Churches, because the origins and history of these texts are unknown. Please establish the legal chain of custody for these texts back to any Apostolic Greek Church in which they were read. You cannot account for the time from their so called 4th century orgin to when Vaticanus was first categlouged at the Vatican or how Sinaticus showed up at St. Catherines. We don’t know who authored these texts or who had access to them. All we know is that these texts were not the type of texts copied by the official Greek Churches, especially the church of Alexandria which still exists Dr Ehrman.

Ireneus, Tertullian and the Apostolic Churches used these same line of aruments against Marcions text, whose text was earlier, who said his text was the official writings of Paul. yet Ireneus and Tertullian documented in their writings the objective criteria for what constituted the original text, demonstrating that the apostolic churches can establish a legal chain of custody for their texts, and that the official churches of Paul basically witness against Marcions shorter, yet not better text, therfore ruling out Marcions Text. This is the same criteria we use against these apocrophal texts (Sinaticus, Vaticanus, PS75, PS66 and others) you assert to be closer representations to the original. Dr Hill properly identifed this as Burgeons true argument.

I’ll be waiting for your response Dr Ehrman

Dr Ehrman, in your last response you stated “I’m not sure what you mean by “apostolic” churches. As opposed to what churches?”

Well Dr Ehrman, I am glad you asked this question, for such a question can only be answered by one in a position to speak to the criteria and distinction, therefore I defer to Tertullian who in his prescription against the heretics provides the answer to your question when he states”

“But if there be any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles… let them unfold the roll of their bishops running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ]bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed… let all the heresies when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic.

Dr Erhman, further on in this same treatise Tertullian challenges these groups to “run over to the apostolic churches; in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read” naming the Apostolic Church of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonians, Ephesus, and Rome.
Now Dr Ehrman, when we investigate the texts reads in these Apostolic Churches, which can legally trace back to the Apostles, in almost all cases, we only find these four gospels. What’s even more amazing is in almost all these Apostolic Churches (Independent Witnesses) throughout the Mediterranean, they basically name the same authors for these four texts, for texts that that didn’t have the author’s name of it.

But when I go to these “Other churches’ which Irenaeus & Tertullian demonstrates cannot establish a legal chain of custody to the apostles” like the Valentians, I find the Gospel of Truth. Now if on the following Sunday, I decide to go to the church of the Marcionites, I’ll only find a redacted text of Luke and ten letters of Paul, that is shorter, but not necessarily better. You even brought up in your blog posts, the gospel of Basilides, so I presume if I went to his congregation, this is the Gospel that I would hear. Do you see the problem Dr Ehrman, all these groups who claim there texts are from the apostles disagree among each other, yet the independent Apostolic churches known to the apostles that can legally establish a chain of custody back to the apostles themselves, basically came up with the same four gospels, naming the same authors – this would be conclusive testimony in any normal court of law.

Dr Ehrman, pay attention to these next several points; Now when Marcion rejected John’s Apocalypse, Tertullian quickly challenged his assertion by stating “We he have St Johns foster churches, and the order of the bishops thereof, when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author” Do you see Dr Ehrman how objective that statement is; for Tertullian is not expressing his opinion, but establishes the legal chain of custody for the text of Revelation by appealing to the historical independent Apostolic Foster Churches of St John as testimony.

A couple of hundred year later, Pope Boniface of Rome, also spoke out against Revelation, but the council of carthage in 419 issued in its cannon 24 a declaration against Bonifice, stating that these texts were ‘RECEIVED’ by the fathers to be read in the churches”….Dr Ehrman, what you seem to not understand, is that for a text of the New Testament to be canonical, it had to be commonly received among the apostolic churches – this is what “Apostolic” and “Catholic” means in the creed (Doesn’t mean Rome)

Dr Ehrman In contrast, Tertullian demonstrates the opposite for Marcions Gospel by stating “whereas Marcion gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. Good bad or indifferent, Marcions biblical text was not commonly received among the official Apostolic Churches of Paul, and it was this criteria that ruled out his biblical text and shorter readings.

Tertullian then turns back to prove the Gospel Texts which Marcion rejected, as the official writings that have come down from the Apostles when he states “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage— I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew— while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul” Once again Tertullian appeals to the textual tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of bishops in the churches, not his own opinion.

Irenaeus uses these same arguments in defending these same four gospels, who also names these four authors when he states “The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time…Not only does Ireneus establish that this was the independent testimony of the Apostolic Churches throughout the Mediterranean, not his opinion, but he establishes the legal chain of custody for these churches and texts back to the apostles.

I just don’t see how your theories overcome the objective historical evidence of the independent apostolic churches to include the Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Vetus Latin throughout the Mediterranean and middle east.