Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why1
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005).
Daniel B. Wallace, “A Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind2
Who Changed the Bible and Why,” Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts,
[Online], available: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 [5 June 2006].
1
A RESPONSE TO BART D. EHRMAN’S MISQUOTING JESUS
Introduction
Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D. is the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is touted to be one of North America’s leading
textual critics today. His recent book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
Bible and Why, is a popular level text that many reviewers take to be an effort to present the field
of New Testament textual criticism to a larger, primarily lay, audience. I found it particularly
difficult to mount a response to this book. Not because the book is a scholarly presentation,1
which it certainly is not, and it is not designed to be—this is not a criticism, but a recognition that
this is a book written on a popular level, not an academic level. And not because the author
makes assertions and claims which are difficult to understand. To the individual with even
rudimentary training in textual criticism, church history, philosophy, and logic the multitude of
problems with this book are easily identifiable. Rather, I found this book difficult because
virtually every assertion and every claim is so fully laden with exaggeration, misrepresentation,
selective reporting, and outright falsehoods that almost every line requires a recasting in an
accurate light and involves a lengthy response to a series of misrepresentations and half-truths,
each built upon the conclusions of the previous. Ehrman has woven a tight web of exaggeration,
partial truths, falsehood, and misrepresentation that would take many more pages, and many
more hours than we have, to unravel in order to set the record straight. It is truly a DeVinci Code
of textual criticism.
When I first began reading the book, I thought the title was inappropriate. Almost all of
the reviews I read are very critical of the book. Daniel Wallace says, “The book’s very title is a
bit too provocative and misleading though: Almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses
involve sayings by Jesus! The book simply doesn’t deliver what the title promises. But it sells
well:” But, I soon discovered that the title is very appropriate, if you think of it as a how-to2
manual. Perhaps the title should have been, “Misquoting Jesus: What it is, and how to do it!”
It is not really surprising to me that when conservatives make claims about the truth of
scripture and the historical accuracy of its record, critical scholars will respond with the counter-
2
Etienne Gilson, Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, trans. Mark A. Wauck3
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 149-50, 130-31.
Ehrman, 7.4
claim that there is no such thing as objective meaning or absolute truth and that there are no such
things as brute facts or objective facts of history—everyone sees through his own perspective,
and there is no such thing as a “view from nowhere!” Yet when a critical scholar comes out with
a criticism of the Bible or its historical accuracy, his fellow critical scholars point to these claims
as if this once for all establishes the objective truth of the issue and has set the historical record
straight. This kind practice is not surprising. What is amazing to me, however, is that
evangelicals will parrot the denials of objective meaning and knowledge, and will dance around
the issue of the historical accuracy with proposals of Midrash, or poetic license, or genre
considerations, or one’s preunderstanding, or “it’s not really Moses’ purpose,” and then they are
surprised and don’t know what to do with someone like Bart Ehrman takes these same claims to
their logical conclusion and uses them against the Bible and against its message. There is an old
saying, “If you swim with the sharks, you’re going to get bitten.” But Etienne Gilson said it much
more effectively: “every philosophical doctrine is ruled by the intrinsic necessity of its own
position and by the consequences which flow from it in virtue of the universal law of reason. . . .
The whole question here is whether it is possible to overcome Kantian agnosticism ‘starting from
its own principles.’ To this we must answer: no, for Kantian agnosticism is inscribed within the
principles from which it flows, which is precisely why they are its principles.” Make no mistake.3
Evangelicals all too often consciously adopt or unwittingly imbibe the popular philosophical and
critical principles underlying such disciplines as linguistics, analytic philosophy, and even
Postmodernism and employ them as their own presuppositions. If evangelical scholars are going
to adopt the philosophical foundations of critical scholarship, then they ought not be surprised
when these foundations inevitably lead to a denial of the objective meaning, truth, and inerrancy
of the Word of God for those who are not afraid to follow them to their logical conclusions.
Bart Ehrman claims to be a happy agnostic. He claims once to have been a born again
Christian. Only God knows his heart, but we ought to know his assumptions. This attack on the
integrity of the New Testament documents is a logical extension of his philosophical
assumptions. Interestingly, his is the same textual philosophy that is employed by the majority of
evangelical textual critics. In his introduction, Ehrman asks, “how does it help us to say that the
Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired,
but only the words copied by the scribes . . .?” Of course this is as absurd a question as, “how4
does it help me to say that Ehrman said these things since I do not have the words he wrote, but
only a copy made by HarperSanFrancisco?” I doubt that Ehrman would tolerate the same
standard imposed upon his own writings. Of course it is self-defeating for Ehrman at once to say
we do not have the original words and then to claim that the copies we have are incorrect or
ridden with errors. How does he know any copies are incorrect if he doesn’t have the original by
which to make a comparison? In fact, the only way he could judge that any copies were copied
incorrectly is if he assumes that the original is preserved in the copies, which he then uses as a
standard of measure by which to measure specific instances of variation.
3
Throughout this paper, the initials ‘ms’ will be used to mean ‘manuscript,’ and ‘mss’5
will be used to mean ‘manuscripts,’ although the words themselves will often be spelled out.
Ehrman, 64.6
Ibid., 7.7
Ibid., 159.8
Ibid., 171, (emphasis added).9
Ibid., 171-72.10
Ibid., 29ff.11
Ehrman asserts that the existing mss are “error ridden,” and that, “We don’t have the5
originals!” and yet time and again throughout his book he argues, based on manuscript evidence,6
that such and such a reading was not in the original. On page 64 Ehrman argues, “As it turns out,
it was not originally in the Gospel of John.” On page 157 he argues that in 1 Tim. 3:16, a scribe7
“had altered the original reading.” On page 159, concerning a variant in Luke 22, Ehrman
dogmatically declares, “‘Today I have begotten you’— is indeed the original.” A particularly8
strong assertion about the original text is made by Ehrman concerning one variant: “We have
seen one instance already in a variant we considered in chapter 5, Hebrews 2:9, in which Jesus
was said, in the original text of the letter, to have died ‘apart from God.’” In this instance he9
even goes so far as confidently to assert, “most scribes had accepted the variant reading . . . even
though that was not the text that the author originally wrote.” If we do not have the originals,10
then how does he know what is and what is not original? This is only a sample of the kind of
exaggeration, selective reporting, and misrepresentation found within the book. It seems more
accurate to characterize Ehrman’s book as “error ridden” than it is of the New Testament mss.
Ehrman on Canonicity of the New Testament
The Question of Canonicity
Ehrman presents his readers with an excellent example of how to use the fallacy of
selective reporting to make one’s case seem stronger. In his section, “The Formation of the
Christian Canon,” Ehrman uses the term “canon” in such a manner as to imply that it was only by
virtue of a book being officially identified as part of a list of canonical books that a particular
writing was accepted as authoritative or divine. Ehrman is confusing canonicity with the11
recognition that a particular book was the God-breathed Word. J. Oliver Buswell expresses this
point well:
Canonicity is not identical with recognition by the church. It is my contention that the
books of the Bible were canonical when written, in the true sense of the word–that is, they
4
J. Oliver Buswell, Part I: Theism, vol. 1, A Systematic Theology of the Christian12
Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 194.
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 172.13
Norman Geisler, Introduction: Bible, vol. 1, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis:14
Bethany House, 2002), 535.
Ibid., 538.15
Ehrman, 30.16
Ibid., 30-31.17
were the rule of God for our faith and life. These books were recognized by the particular
portions of the church of God to which they were written, as canonical at the time when
they were written. Recognition by the church as a whole, in some cases, required time. In
general the various books of the Bible were recognized by God’s people as the Word of
God when these books were read and studied.12
This position is not peculiar to Buswell. Paul Enns makes basically the same point: “The
process of recognition and collection took place in the first centuries of the Christian church.
Very early, the New Testament books were being recognized.” Norman Geisler concurs: “a13
collection of these books was made from the earliest times; even within the New Testament itself
this preservation process was put into action.” Geisler includes a chart that shows that almost14
every book of the New Testament was either named as authentic or identified as authentic by
citation of allusion before the end of the second century. Although other scholars will dispute15
this conservative view, what this shows is that Ehrman’s presentation is not a balanced
presentation. He does not even hint at the possibility that there are other scholarly views.
Jesus and the Old Testament Canon
Ehrman asserts that Jesus’ teaching was received by His followers “to be equal in
authority to the words of scripture itself.” But in his explanation of this he strategically omits16
important information. Implying a conflict between the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament
scriptures, Ehrman asserts, “On some occasions these authoritative interpretations [by Jesus] of
scripture appear, in effect, to countermand the laws of scripture themselves. For example, Jesus
says, ‘You have heard it said, “Whoever divorces his wife should give her a certificate of
divorce” [a command found in Deut. 24:1], but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife
for reason other than sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.’ It is hard to see how one can follow Moses’ command to
give a certificate of divorce, if in fact divorce is not an option.” Of course he fails to include the17
qualifying principle that Jesus stated earlier in the text:
5
Kai. prosh/lqon auvtw/| Farisai/oi peira,zontej auvto.n kai. le,gontej\ eiv e;xestin avnqrw,pw|18
avpolu/sai th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kata. pa/san aivti,anÈ ode. avpokriqei.j ei=pen\ ouvk avne,gnwte o[ti o4
kti,saj avpV avrch/j a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen auvtou,jÈ kai. ei=pen\ e[neka tou,tou katalei,yei5
a;nqrwpoj to.n pate,ra kai. th.n mhte,ra kai. kollhqh,setai th/| gunaiki. auvtou/( kai. e;sontai oidu,o eivj sa,rka mi,anÅ w[ste ouvke,ti eivsi.n du,o avlla. sa.rx mi,aÅ o] ou=n o qeo.j sune,zeuxen a;nqrwpoj mh.6
cwrize,twÅ le,gousin auvtw/|\ ti, ou=n Mwu?sh/j evnetei,lato dou/nai bibli,on avpostasi,ou kai.7
avpolu/sai Îauvth,nÐÈ le,gei auvtoi/j o[ti Mwu?sh/j pro.j th.n sklhrokardi,an umw/n evpe,treyen umi/n8
avpolu/sai ta.j gunai/kaj u`mw/n( avpV avrch/j de. ouv ge,gonen ou[twj (NA27).
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce
his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who
created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined
together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give
her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your
hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has
not been this way” (Matt. 19:3-8).18
In fact, Moses’ statement is not a “command,” in the way Ehrman presents it. It is rather a
permission to divorce, but a command that, if you divorce, you must do it this way. Moses is not
commanding the people to put away their wives. Rather, allowing this because of the hardness of
their hearts, Moses is attempting to regulate an activity among the people in order to bring it
under control. Ehrman says, “It is hard to see how one can follow Moses’ command to give a
certificate of divorce, if in fact divorce is not an option.” Once again Ehrman distorts the fact.
Jesus did not say “divorce is not an option,” but that it was an option only on the case of “sexual
immorality.” But, there is a sense in which Ehrman has inadvertently hit on precisely the point
that Jesus is making. The people of God should not be looking for any reason to divorce their
wives. It is by reason of the hardness of one’s heart that such a practice was permitted in the time
of Moses. Rather, what the people of God ought to be doing is working to make their marriages
work, not looking for some escape clause. But Jesus is not countermanding an Old Testament
command. Rather He is enlightening the people of the truth behind an Old Testament permission
and encouraging them to strive for a higher righteousness, a righteousness that would reflect the
character of God, Who Himself was unwilling to give His wife, Israel, a bill of divorcement even
though she had committed harlotries with the nations (Hosea; Mal. 2:16).
Ehrman on the New Testament Documents
Literacy of the Disciples
Another example of Ehrman’s misrepresentation of the facts by selective reporting is
found in his brief discussion of literacy. Ehrman points out that “for the most part, Christians
6
Ehrman, 39.19
Ibid.20
Qewrou/ntej de. th.n tou/ Pe,trou parrhsi,an kai. VIwa,nnou kai. katalabo,menoi o[ti21
a;nqrwpoi avgra,mmatoi, eivsin kai. ivdiw/tai evqau,mazon evpegi,nwsko,n te auvtou.j o[ti su.n tw/| VIhsou/
h=san
Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (LS), 1968, s.v. “ajgravmmato”.” A Greek-22
English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), 2000, s.v. “ajgravmmato”.”
BDAG, s.v. “ijdiwvth”.”23
Ibid.24
Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1968, s.v. “ijdi wh”.”25
came from the ranks of the illiterate.” He then declares, “In the Gospel accounts, we find that19
most of Jesus’s disciples are simple peasants from Galilee—uneducated fishermen, for example.
Two of them, Peter and John, are explicitly said to be ‘illiterate’ in the book of Acts (4:13).” In20
the NASBU the verse reads, “Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and
understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to
recognize them as having been with Jesus.” The NET Bible translation is slightly different:21
“When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and
ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus.” The terms in
question are translated as “uneducated” and “untrained” in the NASBU, and as “uneducated” and
“ordinary” in the NET. The corresponding Greek words are ajgravmmato” and ijdiw’th”. Although
the word ajgravmmato” (“uneducated”) can be used to indicate someone who cannot read or write,
it can also be used to indicate someone who appears to be uneducated and inarticulate. That is,22
it is used as a derogatory deprecation of someone’s perceived intellectual abilities, not
necessarily an evaluation of the person’s actual literacy. That this is the sense here is supported
by the accompanying word ijdiw’th”. BDAG gives the meaning, “a person who is relatively
unskilled or inexperienced in some activity or field of knowledge, layperson, amateur.” In fact,23
BDAG specifically sites the Acts 4:13 reference and translates the phrase “a[nqrwpo”
ajgravmmato”” as “an untrained person.” What is being pointed out here is not that Peter and24
John were illiterate, but that to the people they seemed to be just ordinary men, not from among
the trained professional scribes or priests. In fact, LS gives a possible definition of ijdiw’th” as “an
average man, opp. a person of distinction.” Ehrman presents the case as if his misrepresentation25
is the only possible way to understand the statement. Even if he is not willing to accept this
explanation as correct, he ought at least to have presented the options to his readers, particularly
since his target audience is the uneducated and untrained—just ordinary folk.
Ehrman’s double standard on this point is revealed in his matter-of-fact observation about
the literacy of Hermas, a character in the early second century text called The Shepherd of
Hermas. By simply reading this story Ehrman concludes, “He was obviously literate, and so
7
Ehrman, 50.26
Ibid., 217.27
Ibid., 56.28
Ibid., 48.29
comparatively well educated.” Ehrman takes the statements in this text at face value and26
concludes that Hermas must have been literate and comparatively well educated. However, he is
not willing to do the same with the writings of the New Testament even though there is far more
historical evidence to support the existence, literacy, and education of men like John and Peter
than that such a person as Hermas ever lived. Because the text of The Shepherd is attributed to
Hermas, Hermas must have been literate. But, even though the texts of the Gospel of John, the
Epistles of John, the book of Revelation are attributed to the Apostle John, John is summarily
dismissed as “illiterate” on the basis of a single reference in Acts 4:13 that can be interpreted in
an entirely different way from the way Ehrman takes it. In fact, Ehrman disqualifies his own
interpretation of the text by his own comments made later: “Texts are interpreted, and they are
interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of
the texts only by explaining them in light of their other knowledge, explicating their meaning,
putting the words of the texts ‘in other words.’ Once readers put a text in other words, however,
they have changed the words. . . And so to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text.” Taking27
into consideration what Ehrman says earlier in his book—“the only way to understand what an
author wants to say is to know what his words—all his words—actually were” —how can28
Ehrman pretend to know what the correct interpretation is? If the only way to know what an
author meant is to know his words, and if reading necessarily changes the words, then how can
anyone know what the author meant? And, if we cannot know what the author meant, then
Ehrman’s interpretation is disqualified, because he can never know that this is what Luke meant
in Acts 4:13.
Copying Uncial Documents
In characterizing the uncial writing that is found in many early NT documents, Ehrman,
once again misrepresents the case. Using the text from the Shepherd of Hermas, Ehrman quotes
the following statement: “I took it and went away to another part of the field, where I copied the
whole thing, letter by letter, for I could not distinguish between the syllables. And then, when I
completed the letters of the book, it was suddenly seized from my hand; but I did not see by
whom.” An important ingredient that Ehrman fails to mention is that there is nothing in the text29
of that indicates that the language Hermas was translating was written in uncial form. This was,
after all, a vision, and there is no reason to assume that Hermas’ vision necessarily indicates any
inherent problem on the part of native Greek speakers-readers in understanding a text in their
native language.
8
Ibid.30
Ibid.31
Ibid.32
Ehrman rightly describes the nature of the uncial type: “One of the problems with ancient
Greek texts (which would include all the earliest Christian writings, including those of the New
Testament) is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction
made between lowercase and uppercase letters, and, even more bizarre to modern readers, no
spaces used to separate words.” This kind of writing has been referred to as Uncial script. This30
kind of script is illustrated in Figure 1. In this example we can see the words,
“epikouriwn kai stoikwn filosophwn,” which can be translated, “of
Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.”
However, having correctly
characterized the documents, he
makes the judgment, “This kind of
continuous writing . . . obviously
could make it difficult at times to
read, let alone understand, a
text.” The problem with this31
characterization is that it is a
judgment from the perspective of someone for whom this is not his native language. It is simply
unreasonable to think that because someone else’s native language is difficult for the non-native
speaker, that a native speaker would have the same level of difficulty in reading it. What may be
difficult for the modern English reader would not have been a problem for a 1 century Greekst
reader. A Greek’s language was just as easy for him to read as our language is for us to read.
Ehrman then uses the example, “The word godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a
theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere);” Although this popular illustration32
seems illustrative at first, it actually serves to confuse the issue. First of all, since we are dealing
with the New Testament, there will never be a situation in which a phrase like this occurs outside
of a context in which the phrase has a determinate meaning. This isolated series of letters might
be understood one way by an atheist and another by a theist, but this is because there is no
context to set the parameters of meaning. If the writing godisnowhere were found in the book
like the book of Romans in a section talking about God’s continued providential care for His
children, then the way to take the writing and its meaning would be obvious. Uncial script of the
New Testament documents simply did not occur in isolated bits, but always in contexts.
Secondly, this is not the way English is written. One reason the series of letters can be
taken one way or another is because English is not written this way. So, for an English reader,
this can be difficult, but the analogy that Ehrman attempts to make thereby fails. The continuous
script of the Greek uncial type is the normal way a Greek of that era would write, and his normal
mode would be no more difficult for him than our normal mode would be for us. Using a mode
contrary to our normal mode of writing does not adequately characterize the ancient situation. It
Figure 1: Uncial Script
9
Ibid., 7.33
Ibid., 48.34
Ibid., 61.35
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), 2d ed. (Garden City, New36
York: Doubleday & Company, 1982), xxxi-xxxii
would be more accurate to say, either “God is now here” or “God is nowhere” characterizes
qeosestinartiwde, and in a given context the Greek reader would have no trouble
knowing what is meant. The native speaker could read his language as easily as we read ours.
Simply because Greek uncial script is sometimes difficult for a non-native Greek scholar to
decipher does not mean we can assume that a native Greek speaker-reader of that age would have
had the same difficulty. The problem today is not so much the mode of writing as it is the fact
that this is not our native language.
Does this mean that there were no mistakes of this kind in transcribing the NT
documents? Not at all. But, the situation is not a excessive as Ehrman seems to want to make it
by such comments as, “We have only error-ridden copies . . .” Misunderstandings were no more33
likely for the Greek speaker-reader of a Greek document than they are for an English speaker-
reader of an English document. Ehrman says, “Obviously, if you don’t know what you’re
reading, the possibilities of making mistakes in transcription multiply.” But this is in fact not34
true. An individual who knows what he is reading will often anticipate words that are actually not
present, but seem to make sense. Someone who does not understand what he is reading tends to
follow the text word for word and letter for letter without anticipation. In such a situation the
person cannot rely on what he thinks is being communicated, but relies more heavily on precisely
what he finds present before him. It is certainly true that a person who does not understand what
he is reading will be less likely to catch an error when one is made, but this does not make him
more prone to error. Nor does the opposite hold true. Just because a person does understand what
he is reading does not necessarily make him more likely to make errors.
Problems with Copying
Ehrman has perfected the art of arguing from ignorance, innuendo, and exaggeration. In
his use of the Gospel of John as an example of problems in copying, he begins by declaring,
“John no doubt had sources for his account.” But what reason is there to think that John’s35
account is anything other than eyewitness testimony? Ehrman does not argue for his position, he
merely asserts it. But, as Raymond Brown points out, “The stylistic differences among the
various sources are not verifiable,” and he approvingly quotes an observation by P. Parker, “It
looks as though, if the author of the Fourth Gospel used documentary sources, he wrote them all
himself.” D. A. Carson asserts, “One of the features of John’s Gospel on which all sides agree36
is that stylistically it is cut from one cloth. The very feature that raises a difficulty — that John’s
comments and Jesus’ speeches can sound so much the same — should also serve as a warning to
10
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press,37
1991), 41.
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans38
Publishing Company, 1971), 58.
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts:39
Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 114-15.
Ibid., 114.40
Ibid.41
Ibid., 64. Of course, if, as Ehrman claimed earlier, and as he will assert in his42
conclusion, we do not have the original, then how does he know that this pericope is not
those who think they can distinguish separate sources buried in the text. The stylistic unity of the
book has been demonstrated again and again as concrete evidence against this or that source
theory.” And Leon Morris states, “Any criticism of this Gospel which rests on the detection of37
sources must be regarded as suspect.” Even Craig S. Keener, who tends toward a critical38
approach, concludes that this Gospel reflects a “reliable tradition,” and that “one may therefore
attribute the Gospel as a whole to an eyewitness.” Concerning the kinds of stylistic differences39
to which Ehrman points as evidence of sources, Keener asserts, “Even stylistic or vocabulary
changes from one section to the next—changes which in John are at most minor—need not
indicate distinct sources.” And after quoting an observation by John A. T. Robinson, “On40
purely stylistic grounds I believe this Gospel must be judged to be a literary unity. Whatever the
slight variations from the average word-count in certain passages, I accept the view that the
whole is the work of a single hand, including the prologue and the epilogue. The attempt to
isolate sources on literary grounds cannot be said to have succeeded,” Keener declares,
“Unpersuaded that the Fourth Gospel provides clear evidence of its sources, this commentary
will proceed on the assumption of its unity in its present form.”41
Once again these arguments might not persuade Ehrman, or anyone else who presupposes
a critical approach, but the fact that Ehrman does not even allow for the possibility that there are
other options demonstrates yet again Ehrman’s techniques of selective reporting and
exaggeration.
Reconstructing the Text
In this section, Ehrman refers to two examples which he brings into service to
demonstrate how the scribes changed the text. The first section that he addresses is the passage in
Jn. 7:53-8:12, the passage usually referred to as “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” After a brief
synopsis of the story, Ehrman asserts, “As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of
John.” He makes this claim first of all on the oft stated principle, “the story is not found in our42
11
original?
Ibid., 65.43
Maurice A. Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine44
Priority,” (TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 2001), http://rosetta.reltech.org/
TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html, §69.
oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John.” This is one of the standard principles that is43
employed in the practice of textual criticism, but it is not without its problems, as Maurice
Robinson points out.

67. An exclusive following of the oldest MSS or witnesses is transmissionally flawed. The
    oldest manuscript of all would be the autograph, but such is not extant. Given the
    exigencies affecting early transmissional history and the limited data preserved from early
    times, it is a methodological error to assume that “oldest is best.” Since the age of a MS
    does not necessarily reflect the age of its text, and since later MSS may preserve a text
    more ancient than that found in older witnesses, the “oldest is best” concept is based on a
    fallacy. While older MSS, versions, and fathers demonstrate a terminus a quo for a given
    reading, their respective dates do not confer authenticity; they only establish the existence
    of a given reading at a given date. All readings within a variant unit should be considered
    under all aspects of transmission: minority readings which leave no continual trace
    throughout transmissional history are suspect; they are not made more authentic merely by
    an appearance in one or a few ancient witnesses.44
    Interestingly, the research of Philip B. Payne on the presence of umlauts marking lines of
    Codex Vaticanus B has provided new evidence in support of the antiquity of this pericope. The
    umlauts seem to mark textual variants, places where Vaticanus differs from other manuscripts
    that a scribe was using to compare readings. Payne says,
    These Umlauts offer new light on a host of textual questions such as the two examples just
    mentioned. The chocolate-brown Umlaut at the end of Ioh. 7,52 is at the point where the
    account of the woman taken in adultery traditionally occurs. Thus, although Codex
    Vaticanus does not include this account, this Umlaut, presuming it was traced over an
    original one, provides the earliest evidence for the presence of this account here in the text
    of John, even earlier than Jerome’s reference to its occurrence in many Greek codices.
    Metzger describes the evidence that this pericope is an interpolation as “overwhelming”
    and the case is indeed strong. Since, however, there are only two extant papyri written prior
    to Vaticanus that omit this pericope, Ì66 and Ì75, the evidence provided by this Umlaut
    12
    Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart, “‘Umlauts’ Matching the Original Ink of Codex45
    Vaticanus: Do They Mark the Location of Textual Variants?” (Edmonds, Washington, and
    Vatican: Payne Loving Trust, 2006), 14.
    Ehrman, 129. Of course the qualifying premise, that the text gets changed more46
    frequently with the passing of time, flatly contradicts his earlier assertions about the history of
    the transmission of the text. For example, on page 74 Ehrman states, “the texts that are closest in
    form to the originals are, perhaps unexpectedly, the more variable and amateurish copies of
    earlier times, not the more standardized professional copies of later times,” and on page 75 he
    asserts, “As I have indicated, the text of the New Testament was copied in a fairly standardized
    form throughout the centuries of the Middle Ages, both in the East (the Byzantine text) and in the
    West (the Latin Vulgate). . . . Gone were the days when transcribers would each produce
    different copies of the same text by means of accidental and intentional alterations.” If the history
    of transmission shows that with the passage of time the text in fact did not get changed more
    frequently, this seems to pull the rug out from under the premise that supports this principle.
    that a manuscript of John written prior to Vaticanus included this pericope here is
    important evidence for its antiquity.45
    Ehrman does not even hint at the possibility of other scholarly opinions, and as a text that
    is supposed to introduce the untrained lay person, it is inexcusably one-sided in its presentation.
    External Evidence
    Oldest is the Best
    In his presentation of the consideration of external evidence, Ehrman floats the principle,
    “It is far more likely that the oldest form of the text will be found in the oldest surviving
    manuscripts—on the premise that the text gets changed more frequently with the passing of
    time.” As a way of illustrating this principle, Ehrman constructs a hypothetical scenario in46
    which he attempts to illustrate that a majority of manuscripts is not necessarily more likely to
    preserve an earlier reading.
    Suppose that after the original manuscript of a text was produced, two copies were made of
    it, which we may call A and B. These two copies, of course, will differ from each other in
    some ways—possibly major and probably minor. Now suppose that A was copied by one
    other scribe, but B was copied by fifty scribes. Then the original manuscript, along with
    copies A and B, were lost, so that all that remains in the textual tradition are the fifty-one
    second-generation copies, one made from A and fifty made from B. If a reading found in
    the fifty manuscripts (from B) differs from a reading found in the one (from A), is the
    former necessarily more likely to be the original reading? No, not at all—even though by
    counting noses, it is found in fifty times as many witnesses. In fact, the ultimate difference
    in support for that reading is not fifty manuscripts to one. It is a difference of one to one (A
    13
    Ibid., 128-29.47
    Ibid., 124.48
    Ehrman defines rational eclecticism as the choice “from among a variety of textual49
    readings the one that best represents the oldest form of the text, using a range of (rational) textual
    arguments. These arguments are based on evidence that is usually classified as either external or
    internal in nature.” Ibid., 128.
    Stephen W. Frary, “Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal50
    Evidence in Support of a Variant in 1 Tim 3:16a,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 16
    (Mayo-Noviembre 2003): 3-4.
    against B). The mere question of numbers of manuscripts supporting one reading over
    another, therefore, is not particularly germane to the question of which reading in our
    surviving manuscripts represents the original (or oldest) form of the text.47
    This thought experiment sounds convincing at first sight, but it does not hold up to
    scrutiny. If, as Ehrman stipulates, one knows that the fifty manuscripts were copied from B and
    that only one was copied from A, then the scenario is fairly reasonable. But this is precisely the
    problem. No one knows whether the fifty manuscripts were copied from B or not. The history of
    transmission does not provide sufficient information to tell us which manuscripts were copied
    from which. The only criterion for reaching such a conclusion is the analysis of the readings
    themselves and the judgment of how closely one manuscript compares to another. But, the
    assumption that the “Identity of reading implies identity of origin,” is a very subjective48
    principle. What counts as “identity”? How many words must be considered in a passage to count
    as identical? And since the existing manuscripts are ultimately copies of the autograph, it stands
    to reason that manuscripts, though copied from a number of intermediate manuscripts,
    conceivably would have the same text. All the copyists are copying the same text. So, identity of
    reading implies identify of origin only in the sense that they all derive from the autographs.
    Ehrman’s scenario suffers from a misrepresentation of the proportions. It is not as if we have one
    manuscript against fifty. It is rather the case that there is a proportion of one to one thousand.
    One reason Ehrman represents the situation in the way he does is because, as a follower of the
    rational eclectic approach, Ehrman is predisposed to prefer the Alexandrian text. As one author49
    put it, “nearly a century of effort [by reasoned eclectics] has resulted in a critical edition of the
    NT which agrees in substantially every respect with that produced over 100 years ago by their
    patron saints Westcott and Hort, whose work was without the benefit of any of the papyri or over
    four-fifths of the uncials. . . . Yet . . . the eclectic methods result in a hodgepodge text which has
    never existed as an entity in the history of the transmission of the NT, not only as an intact
    chapter or book, but in some places not even as a single verse.”50
    14
    Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” §67.51
    One of the problems that Robinson identifies with the assumption that the older is the
    better is that “the age of a MS does not necessarily reflect the age of its text.” In other words, an51
    earlier MS may not have the earliest text, because a later MS may in fact preserve a older text.
    One of the problems with the task of textual criticism of the New Testament is the lack of
    information about transmissional practices. There are only a very few colophons that give any
    substantive information about the history of the transmission of the NT documents in the first
    three centuries of the church. So, any scenario about how transmission was accomplished is
    speculation. But, let us engage in a brief thought experiment as a counter-example to Ehrman’s
    hypothetical scenario above, and for the purposes of elucidating Robinson’s point. Let us
    suppose, for the sake of the experiment, that some time early in the second century, there existed
    in Antioch three mss that preserved a first century text of an apostolic letter, the mss themselves
    being first century copies. Unbeknownst to the fine people at Antioch, one of these copies had an
    error in the text that crept in when these three mss were copied, while the other two were perfect
    copies of the original. Let us also suppose that in Alexandria, the churches heard of the existence
    of this letter, and inquired of the churches of Antioch whether they might obtain a copy. The
    churches of Antioch decided to send one of their three copies to their brethren in Alexandria, and
    inadvertently they sent the one copy that had the error. Over the course of years, the mss at
    Antioch were copied and re-copied. Because there were more Christians in Antioch, because the
    climate was temperate, and because the mss suffered from more frequent use, the first century
    mss were destroyed, and so also the second and third century mss. So, the Christians in Antioch
    now possess two fourth century mss, albeit with a text that exactly preserves the original. In
    Alexandria, on the other hand, the climate is dryer so the mss tend not to disintegrate so readily.
    Additionally, there are fewer churches and fewer Christians in Alexandria than in Antioch, so the
    mss tend not to be used so frequently. As a result, the mss last longer, so that over time, the
    churches at Alexandria produce fewer copies than do the Christians at Antioch. Ultimately, at the
    end of the same period of time, whereas the churches at Antioch have 4 century mss, the churchth
    at Alexandria has a late 2 or early 3 century ms. However, the text that is preserved in thend rd
    Alexandrian ms is the one that had the error introduced early in the transmissional history. So,
    according to this scenario, the earlier ms does not actually have the better text, and the later mss
    actually preserve and older text. Now, there is no historical information indicating that such an
    event ever occurred in the history of transmission. However, likewise there is no historical
    information indicating that such a scenario did not or could not have occurred. This kind of event
    or something like it could very likely have happened in the history of transmission, so one cannot
    assume that an older ms is the best. That is what Robinson means when he says, “Since the age
    of a MS does not necessarily reflect the age of its text, and since later MSS may preserve a text
    more ancient than that found in older witnesses, the ‘oldest is best’ concept is based on a
    fallacy.”
    15
    Ehrman, 68.52
    Craig L. Blomberg, “Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who53
    Changed the Bible and Why,” Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and
    Theological Studies, ed, Richard S. Hess, [Online], available: http://www.denverseminary.edu/
    dj/articles2006/0200/0206.php [5 June 2006].
    Ibid.54
    The Best is the Oldest
    Having examined two passages which he believes were not original, Jn. 7:53-8:12, and
    the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel, Ehrman asserts, “The passages discussed above
    represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament
    came to be changed by scribes.” What is deceptive about this comment is that he expresses it in52
    such a manner that one is led to believe that there are thousands of places in the New Testament
    where there are these kinds of massive changes. As Craig Blomberg points out, Ehrman’s
    comments leave “the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of
    various phenomena he discusses when there are not.” Blomberg continues, “his first extended53
    examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the
    longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the
    originals of either Gospel, Ehrman concedes that ‘most of the changes are not of this magnitude’
    (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact
    there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen-
    and twelve-verse additions.”54
    Ehrman’s comments seem purposely crafted to misrepresent the case and to imply things
    about the New Testament that are simply not ture. There are, in fact, over 200,000 variants
    among the existing manuscripts. But this does not mean that there are over 200,000 places in the
    New Testament where there are changes in the text. What this means is that among the 6000 or
    so existing manuscripts, there are over 200,000 instances where these manuscripts differ among
    themselves. So, for any one variant in the New Testament, there can be hundreds of manuscripts
    that differ among themselves concerning this one passage. So, there are not thousands of places
    in the New Testament where there are differences. There are hundreds of places in the New
    Testament, in fact only about 10 to 15% of the New Testament, in which the manuscripts differ
    among themselves.
    Blomberg makes some helpful corroborating observations on this point:
    Ehrman almost gives the impression that 400,000 variants exist and we have no idea what
    was original and what was not, throwing the entire New Testament into utter obscurity.
    That is simply misleading. In this regard, Ehrman wants to be able to have his text-critical
    cake and eat it too. One the one hand, he needs to argue that text-critical methodologies are
    reliable and can show you what was original and what was not, otherwise he would not be
    16
    Ibid.55
    Ehrman, 130.56
    Ibid.57
    Ibid.58
    Ibid., 130-31.59
    able to demonstrate that changes have been made for theological reasons (as he argues in
    chapter 6). But, on the other hand, he wants the “original” text of the New Testament to
    remain inaccessible and obscure, forcing him to argue that text-critical methodologies
    cannot really produce any certain conclusions. Which one is it? This entire method of
    argumentation is not designed to bring clarity to the issue, but to muddle it, so that the
    confused reader will succumb to the doubts that have been raised and concede the New
    Testament cannot be trusted.55
    What is particularly problematic about Ehrman’s reasoning is that it seems to be circular.
    Ehrman asserts, “Probably the most important external criterion that scholars follow is this: for a
    reading to be considered ‘original,’ it normally should be found in the best manuscripts and the
    best groups of manuscripts.” How do we know which manuscripts are best? Ehrman explains,56
    “it works like this: some manuscripts can be shown, on a variety of grounds, to be superior to
    others. For example, whenever internal evidence (discussed below) is virtually decisive for a
    reading, these manuscripts almost always have that reading, whereas other manuscripts (usually,
    as it turns out, the later manuscripts) have the alternative reading.” But how does one know57
    whether a reading is “virtually decisive”? Ehrman explains, “The principle involved here states
    that if some manuscripts are known to be superior in readings when the oldest form is
    obvious . . .” When would an “oldest form” be obvious? When they “preserve the oldest and58
    best of our surviving witnesses, and when tested, are shown to provide superior readings.” But,59
    this sounds like, “A manuscript is best if it is oldest, and it is oldest if it has superior readings,
    and we know it has superior readings because it preserves the oldest witnesses, and is found in
    the best manuscripts.” But, this is sounds circular, and, as we have seen, the oldest manuscript
    may not have the oldest reading, because a later manuscript may in fact preserve an older
    reading.
    Ehrman asserts that it was principally due to the conversion of Constantine that altered
    the status of Christianity in the empire. As more and more educated and trained professionals
    joined the church, according to Ehrman, those who were enlisted to copy the NT mss were more
    likely to be professionals: “Starting with the fourth century, then, copies of scripture began to be
    made by professionals; this naturally curtailed significantly the number of errors that crept into
    17
    Ibid., 73.60
    Maurice A. Robinson, “The Integrity of the Early New Testament Text: A Collation-61
    Based Comparison Utilizing the Papyri of the Second and Third Centuries” (Valley Forge,
    Pennsylvania: Evangelical Theological Society: 57 Annual Meeting, 2005), 3-4.th
    the text.” That being the case, we ought to be able to compare the earlier texts with the later60
    texts and thereby chronicle the “error-riddenness” of the text.
    Testing the Reliability of New Testament Manuscripts
    Maurice A. Robinson, Senior Professor of Greek and New Testament at Southeastern
    Baptist Theological Seminary, did a detailed study comparing manuscripts. His explanation of
    this study, though lengthy, is necessary in order to grasp the significance of the findings.
    More than a century ago, in the pre-papyrus era, Westcott and Hort stated that, in their
    estimation, at least seven-eighths of the NT text (87.5%) was secure and required no
    application of textual criticism whatever. For that massively high percentage of accepted
    common text, the implication was clear: in those portions of text, the autographs are
    represented in total purity. Only in the remaining 12.5% of the text does textual criticism
    play any role whatever. The current issue is whether Westcott and Hort were correct in
    their estimation, or whether the actual amount of unquestioned “autograph originality”
    might have changed in light of the papyrus discoveries, particularly if early and late MSS
    that represent widely varying textual traditions are compared. No such study yet appears to
    have been done in order to test the earlier claim of Westcott and Hort. The current essay
    serves as a sample expedition toward the establishment of the correctness or incorrectness
    of the original claim in light of the papyri discovered since 1881.
    In order to accomplish this test, some 30 randomly selected early MSS of the second and
    third centuries are collated against the Byzantine Textform (Robinson-Pierpont edition).
    Such a collation is particularly appropriate, since it is well known that none of those early
    documents — indeed no extant Greek NT manuscript prior to the mid-fourth century — yet
    reflects a thoroughly Byzantine type of text. Thus, the amount of textual diversity and
    divergence should be maximized in such a test.61
    The test that Dr. Robinson conducted he identified as the WID test (the “Words in
    Dispute” test):
    To perform the WID test, one must tabulate the deviations of a particular edition or
    manuscript from a different standard of comparison (which for comparative purposes could
    be either a printed TR edition, the Byzantine Textform, or the WH/UBS /NA text). All4 27
    deviations are tabulated under the four heads of textual variation: (1) additions; (2)
    omissions; (3) transpositions; and (3) substitutions. The amount of per-word deviation is
    18
    Ibid., 6.62
    divided by the total number of words in the sample portion of text examined,
    corresponding to the respective textbase used for comparison (e.g., the Rich Man and
    Lazarus narrative contains 251 words in the Byzantine Textform and 244 words in the
    WH/NA /UBS text). The resultant percentage represents the amount of deviation from27 4
    the standard of comparison. This then is subtracted from 100 percent, in order to display
    the overall relative “stability” of the text between both examined entities.62
    Applying this text to the 30 or so randomly selected manuscripts involving five passages,
    the following results were reported by Robinson.
68. Matthew 13
    Marking individual word counts:
    Byz longer 28 individual words
    Byz shorter 4 individual words
    Byz substitutes 22 individual words
    Byz transposes 2 individual words
    Subtotal = 56 individual words
    Total words in Byz = 1098
    Total words in WH= 1072 (1076 in NA /UBS )27 4
    Percent of common text vis-à-vis Byz = 94.9%; vis-à-vis WH = 94.8%
69. Acts 13
    Marking individual word counts:
    Byz longer 28 individual words
    Byz shorter 12 individual words
    Byz substitutes 26 individual words
    Byz transposes 8 individual words
    Subtotal = 74 individual words
    Total words in Byz = 948
    Total words in WH = 931 (933 in NA /UBS )27 4
    Percent of common text vis-à-vis Byz = 92.2%; vis-à-vis = 92.1%
70. Romans 13
    Marking individual word counts:
    Byz longer 7 individual words
    Byz shorter 2 individual words
    Byz substitutes 7 individual words
    Byz transposes 0 individual words
    Subtotal = 16 individual words
    19
    Ibid., 8-9.63
    Ibid., 20.64
    Total words in Byz = 276
    Total words in = 271 (270 in NA /UBS )27 4
    Percent of common text vis-à-vis Byz = 94.2%; vis-à-vis WH = 94.1%
71. Hebrews 13
    Marking individual word counts:
    Byz longer 4 individual words
    Byz shorter 2 individual words
    Byz substitutes 6 individual words
    Byz transposes 0 individual words
    Subtotal = 12 individual words
    Total words in Byz = 380
    Total words in = 377 (378 in NA /UBS )27 4
    Percent of common text vis-à-vis Byz = 96.8%; vis-à-vis WH = 96.8%
72. Revelation 13
    Marking individual word counts:
    Byz longer 4 individual words
    Byz shorter 6 individual words
    Byz substitutes 26 individual words
    Byz transposes 2 individual words
    Subtotal = 38 individual words
    Total words in Byz = 452
    Total words in WH = 456 (454 in NA /UBS )27 4
    Percent of common text vis-à-vis Byz = 91.6%; vis-à-vis WH = 91.7%63
    Robinson’s study shows that there is, on average, a 92.2% average stability in the text
    during the very period that Ehrman asserts the greatest number of variants were introduced into
    the manuscripts. There is much more to Robinson’s study than we can present (a chart produced
    by Robinson that summarizes his findings is included in Appendix 3), but his conclusions are
    particularly important as a response to Ehrman’s claim that the mss of the New Testament are
    “error-ridden.” As Robinson asserts, “The present experiment has shown that the text as a whole
    remains remarkably consistent — not merely between the early papyri and the text of the fourth
    century manuscripts, but between the early papyri and the text found in manuscripts dating more
    than 1,000 years later. Indeed, the base form of the autograph text has been substantially
    preserved, tending to differ only in minor details among the manuscripts. The primary base text
    otherwise clearly represents that which originally had been given by the sacred writers in the first
    century.64
    20
    Ehrman, 157.65
    Theologically Motivated Alterations
    In his effort to demonstrate the supposed error-riddenness of the manuscripts of the NT,
    Ehrman emarks on a quest that includes chapters 6 and 7 of his book. He considers various
    passages and attempts to argue that these are examples of theologically and socially motivated,
    intentional changes—not merely copyist errors—that call into question the reliability and
    integrity of the New Testament documents. We will attempt to address each example to which
    Ehrman appeals.
    Antiadoptionist Changes
    1 Tim. 3:16
    Ehrman employs the variant in 1 Tim. 3:16 as an example of theologically motivated
    changes in the text (see Figure 2). He attributes this change to a scribe who “had altered the
    original reading, so that it no longer read ‘who’ but ‘God’ (made manifest in the flesh). In other
    words, this later corrector changed the text in such a way as to stress Christ’s divinity.”65
    Figure 2: 1 Tim. 3:16 Uncials
    21
    Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed.66
    (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 574. The construction !qs, and other similar
    constructions, are referred to as nomina sacra. These are abbreviations that scribes used for
    certain words found in the uncial mss. This particular construction is the abbreviation for qeov”.
    Ehrman does not allow for the possibility that the change could be an unintentional error.
    In his Textual Commentary, Metzger asserts that the deliberate change is less probable: “The
    reading qeov” arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of os as !qs, or (b)
    deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to
    provide greater dogmatic precision.” What is particularly problematic about this claim is that if66
    it is possible for Ehrman to identify this as a deliberate change, then why does he say we do not
    have the original? For an individual who repeatedly declares that the text is “riddled with errors,”
    he can be extremely dogmatic about what is and what is not a deliberate change of the text.
    After a lengthy discussion of the claims and counter-claims made by textual critics over
    this variant, Stephen W. Frary concludes,
    Having considered the possibilities of accidental or intentional changes and the congruence
    of the possible variants with the hymn genre and Paul’s way of quoting them, what are we
    left to conclude about 1 Tim. 3:16a particularly, and the value of internal evidence in
    general? Clearly, the easy way in which most text critics dismiss the internal evidence (Fee,
    Metzger) or assume its attestation for o}” (Elliott) is unfounded. There are far more data to
    consider, and their verdict is not unanimous. If we consider the possibility of accidental
    corruption, though o}” at first seems more likely to have given rise to the other readings, it
    must be recognized that an exemplar in poor condition, where specific letters are easy to
    confuse, as in the case of MSS F and G, can also explain the confusion of !qs and os.
    While accidental changes seem to be the least subjective and the easiest to identify,
    determining which changes are easier as scribal creations can in no way be described as an
    objective process. One can construct scenarios for nearly any variant by merely
    presupposing the attitude and aptitude of a scribe. A most conscientious scribe, faithfully
    copying what is before him will be prone only to accidental errors. The theologian may fall
    to the temptation to “clarify” a text with qeo;” in a way that a grammarian would not, while
    the Greek-speaking scribe may not believe that sacred writ could contain a pronoun
    disagreeing with its antecedent’s gender. It is not always possible, therefore, to decide this
    variant on the grounds of “most difficult reading” without unwarranted and improvable
    speculations. Determining the most appropriate reading for the style of the author or the
    genre of the text seems to have more promise. From the data presented, it is obvious that
    neither the Christ hymn as a form, nor Paul’s use of it in his texts is adequately described
    by saying of the relative pronoun “It is a typical way to introduce a hymn . . . and it is not
    necessary to locate an antecedent in the text.” Hymns were introduced in a variety of ways,
    and it is indeed tenuous to dogmatically state that any Pauline use of a Christ hymn must be
    22
    Frary, “Who Was Manifested in the Flesh,” 17-18.67
    Ehrman, 158.68
    introduced with a relative pronoun. There is more than sufficient evidence that qeo;” would
    have been appropriate here.67
    In other words, the debate of this reading is not even close to being decided among the
    various textual critics of the various schools of thought, and for Ehrman to discuss it as if his
    own speculations have certainly resolved the issue is a misrepresentation of the textual situation
    and is misleading for his readers. Additionally, if, as Eharman claims, we do not have the
    original, then how does he know that this was a deliberate change. What if, rather, this was a
    deliberate change to make an orthodox assertion support an adoptionist agenda? Isn’t this just as
    likely? Yet he does not allow his readers to be introduced to these possibilities. In fact, it seems
    more likely that Ehrman has made a deliberate theological change in the text critical and
    historical facts to support his anti-Christian agenda.
    Lk. 2:33
    But he goes beyond simple selective reporting when he attempts to demonstrate that Lk.
    2:33 is an instance of a deliberate antiadoptionist alteration. He says,
    Other antiadoptionistic changes took place in the manuscripts that record Jesus’s early
    life in the Gospel of Luke. In one place we are told that when Joseph and Mary took Jesus
    to the Temple and the holy man Simeon blessed him, “his father and mother were
    marveling at what was said to him” (Luke 2:33). His Father? How could the text call
    Joseph Jesus’s father if Jesus had been born of a virgin? Not surprisingly, a large number
    of scribes changed the text to eliminate the potential problem, by saying “Joseph and his
    mother were marveling. . . .” Now the text could not he used by an adoptionist Christian in
    support of the claim that Joseph was the child’s father.
    A similar phenomenon happens a few verses later in the account of Jesus as a
    twelve-year-old in the Temple. The story line is familiar: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus attend a
    festival in Jerusalem, but then when the rest of the family heads home in the caravan, Jesus
    remains behind, unbeknownst to them. As the text says, “his parents did not know about
    it.” But why does the text speak of his parents when Joseph is not really his father? A
    number of textual witnesses “correct” the problem by having the text read, “Joseph and his
    mother did not know it.” And again, some verses later, after they return to Jerusalem to
    hunt high and low for Jesus, Mary finds him, three days later, in the Temple. She upbraids
    him: “Your father and I have been looking for you!” Once again, some scribes solved the
    problem—this time by simply altering the text to read “We have been looking for you!”68
    Once again Ehrman has misrepresented the case in order to further his agenda. If the
    variant in Lk. 2:33 had been a deliberate change to avoid an antiadoptionist interpretation, why
    23
    kai; ijdovnte” aujto;n ejxeplavghsan, kai; ei\pen pro;” aujto;n hJ mhvthr aujtou’: tevknon, tiv69
    ejpoivhsa” hJmi’n ou{tw”ò ijdou; oJ pathvr sou kajgw; ojdunwvmenoi ejzhtou’mevn se.
    Reuben Swanson, ed., Luke, in New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Sheffield, England:70
    Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 43.
    ei\ta levgei tw’/ maqhth’/: i[de hJ mhvthr sou. kai; ajp j ejkeivnh” th'” w{ra” e[laben oJ maqhth;”71
    aujth;n eij” ta; i[dia.
    Lk. 2:27 kai; h\lqen ejn tw’/ pneuvmati eij” to; iJerovn: kai; ejn tw’/ eijsagagei’n tou;” gonei'” to;72
    paidivon j Ihsou’n tou’ poih’sai aujtou;” kata; to; eijqismevnon tou’ novmou peri; aujtou’; 2:41 Kai;
    ejporeuvonto oiJ gonei'” aujtou’ kat j e[to” eij” j Ierousalh;m th’/ eJorth’/ tou’ pavsca; 2:43 kai;
    teleiwsavntwn ta;” hJmevra”, ejn tw’/ uJpostrevrein aujtou;” uJpevmeinen j Ihsou'” oJ pai'” ejn j Ierousalhvm,
    kai; oujk e[gnwsan oiJ gonei'” aujtou’.; 8:56 kai; ejxevsthsan oiJ gonei'” aujth'”: oJ de; parhvggeilen
    did not the same scribe of scribes also change Lk. 2:48: “When they saw Him, they were
    astonished; and His mother said to Him, ‘Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your
    father [oJ pathvr sou] and I have been anxiously looking for You.’” Reuben Swanson shows that
    69
    there are no variants among the most important New Testament mss with respect to the presence
    of the word “father in verse 48:70
    Also, the fact is that these kinds of terms are not always indicative of a strict biological
    relation. Consider Jn. 19:27 in which Jesus says, “Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your
    mother [hJ mhvthr sou]!’” Here Jesus uses the term “mother (mhvthr) with reference to “the71
    disciple” who is certainly not her biological son. Just as we do today, in the time of Jesus’ earthly
    ministry the terms ‘father’ and ‘mother’ could be used figuratively or in ways to indicate other
    kinds of relations than strictly biological relations. One such use is a legal relation. It seems to be
    the height of arrogance to claim that just because he does not know how the text could call
    Joseph Jesus’ father, it cannot be explained any other way. Is it reasonable to think that Dr.
    Ehrman is unaware of these kinds of uses? This sounds more like a deliberate attempt to mislead
    the reader.
    With reference to the use of the term “parents” (gonei'”), Ehrman faces the same problem.
    If the variant in verse 43 was an attempt to alter the text toward an antiadoptionist perspective,
    then why did the scribe(s) let stand the other 5 instances in Luke’s gospel were this term is used
    of Joseph and Mary with relation to Jesus. This is particularly problematic since the word is72
    Figure 3: pathvr in Lk. 2:48
    24
    aujtoi'” mhdeni; eijpei’n to; gegonov”.; 18:29 oJ de; ei\pen aujtoi'”: ajmh;n levgw uJmi’n o{ti oujdeiv” ejstin o}”
    ajfh’ken oijkivan h] gunai’ka h] ajdelfou;” h] gonei'” h] tevkna e{neken th'” basileiva” tou’ qeou’,; 21:16
    paradoqhvsesqe de; kai; uJpo; gonevwn kai; ajdelfw’n kai; suggenw’n kai; fivlwn, kai; qanatwvsousin
    ejx uJmw’n.
    On page 159 Ehrman gives the reference as Lk. 3:23, but he is actually discussing the73
    text of verse 22: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased” (su; ei\ oJ uiJov” mou oJ
    ajgaphtov”, ejn soi; eujdovkhsa.).
    Ehrman, 159.74
    used only two verses earlier, in 2:41: “Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast
    of the Passover.” There are other explanations that are just as reasonable, and perhaps more
    reasonable, than Ehrman’s. His conclusion is based on his text critical assumption that a is
    necessarily the best ms. It is just as reasonable, and perhaps more reasonable, once one sets aside
    the assumption that the Alexandrian text is necessarily the best, that this passage could have been
    changed from “Joseph and his mother” to “the parents” in order to make it harmonize with the
    other instances in which ‘parents’ is used. Might this not explain why this one passage is
    different? The point is not necessarily to convince anyone of one reason over another, but to
    demonstrate that Ehrman presents the case as if there is no question that his interpretation is the
    only one that exists, or the only one that is possible. He does not present a balanced view, nor
    does he allow his readers to know that there are options and contrary opinions.
    Lk. 3:22
    In his further efforts to show intentional theologically motivated changes, Ehrman
    examines the statement by Luke in 3:22. In his discussion he matter-of-factly declares, “As we73
    have seen, scribes typically try to harmonize texts rather than take them out of harmony; it is
    therefore the form of the text that differs from Mark that is more likely to be original in Luke.”74
    This assertion is particularly strange for several reasons. First, Ehrman strategically neglected to
    employ or even refer to this “canon” of criticism when examining the variant in Lk. 2:43. Since
    the expression “Joseph and his mother” is so much out of harmony with the frequent uses of
    “parents,” why isn’t this reading “more likely to be original in Luke” since it is different? It
    seems that the so-called canons of criticism are more likely convenient justifications that the
    textual critic, or at least Ehrman, can call upon in order to justify his a priori assumptions.
    Secondly, again Ehrman presents a one-sided view of the facts. It is not at all generally
    accepted among textual critics that any one so-called canon of criticism is as unproblematic as
    Ehrman seems to present them. As James Royse points out, even when it comes to stating what
    the principles are or even what one particular canon is claiming, “the statements [among critics]
    vary more or less from one another and often lead to conflicts in practice. . . . While one can
    hardly hope that scholars might agree on all such issues, the varying statements and the conflicts
    lead one to wonder what the evidence is (or might be) for such claims about the tendencies of
    25
    James R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New75
    Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman
    and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 241.
    Ibid., 244.76
    Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” §33.77
    Ehrman, 159.78
    Ibid., 159.79
    scribes, especially for such specific tendencies . . .” Royse goes on to point out that, “such75
    discussions [about the canons of criticism] show that the application of these principles may
    vary, and that the evidence underlying them is far from clear. Indeed, evidence for these
    principles is usually not cited, and one may wonder whether it is possible to know what scribal
    tendencies were, either for a particular scribe or for scribes in general.”76
    In his discussion of the statement in Lk. 3:22, Ehrman refers the reader to the fact that
    earlier in his text he has shown the reader that the tendency of scribes is to harmonize the text.
    He is referring to his assertions on page 97 where he says, “The scribal tendency to ‘harmonize’
    passages in the Gospels is ubiquitous.” Contrary to this supposed tendency, however, Robinson
    points out, “The apparatuses demonstrate that most of the numerous cases of harmonization or
    assimilation did not perpetuate in any great quantity. While scribes did harmonize at various
    places, and that frequently enough, the vast majority of scribes did not accept or perpetuate such
    alterations to any significant degree. Even if parallel locations were known from personal
    familiarity with scripture, most scribes would not adopt or add to the text that which was not in
    the exemplar before them. Harmonization simply did not occur on the grand scale.” Far from77
    being “ubiquitous” harmonization may have in fact been minimal, at least in the sense that
    harmonizations did not survive in the tradition. And just as Royse pointed out, Ehrman
    strategically omits any evidence for the so-called principle of harmonization. What he presents is
    rather a dubious instance of the influence of oral tradition. This is hardly a case of harmonization
    such as the one he is claiming in Lk. 3:22, and it is certainly a safe assertion for Ehrman to make
    since oral tradition, by its very nature, does not survive, and Ehrman’s claim thereby becomes, to
    some degree, unfalsifiable.
    Ehrman concludes that the “less-attested reading—‘Today I have begotten you’— is
    indeed the original.” But what happened to the principle of the “best and earliest manuscripts”?78
    Ehrman claims that, “In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice
    says something strikingly different: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’” As is his79
    modus operandi, Ehrman strategically neglects to tell his readers which “early manuscript” this
    is. The “early manuscript” to which Ehrman refers is D, Codex Bezae, also known as
    Cantabrigiensis, which is classified as Western text-type and dates from the fifth or sixth century.
    Interestingly, according to Bruce Metzger, “No known manuscript has so many and such
    remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the normal New Testament text. Codex
    26
    Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and80
    Restoration, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50.
    Ibid., 51.81
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 112-13.82
    Ehrman’s appeals on page 160 to Acts 10:37-38 and Acts 2:38 are patently absurd. He83
    claims that in Acts 10:37-38 Luke asserts that Jesus became Christ at His baptism. Of course the
    text says nothing of the sort: “yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea,
    starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. You know of Jesus of Nazareth,
    how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good
    and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” Nowhere in this text
    does Luke claim that Jesus became the Christ at His baptism. Concerning Acts 2:38 Ehrman
    asserts, “Luke states that Jesus became the Christ at his resurrection (Acts 2:38).” The text of
    Acts 2:38 states, “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
    Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” It is
    likely that Ehrman’s reference is a misprint, and he is referring to statements made earlier in the
    passage. Going through the earlier verses, there is no statement that asserts that Jesus became the
    Christ at His resurrection. The closest to this is verse 36 which says, “Therefore let all the house
    of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you
    crucified.” But here there is no assertion that Jesus “became the Christ” at his resurrection. The
    statement is simply that God made Jesus Lord and Christ. There is no indication here as to when
    this appointment took place. Conveniently, Ehrman does not quote these verses nor present any
    argument or evidence that his understanding of them is accurate or even reasonable.
    Bezae’s special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences,
    and even incidents.” Whereas Ehrman confidently asserts that this reading is indeed original,80
    Metzger points out that, among critical scholars, “There is still no unanimity of opinion regarding
    the many problems which the manuscript raises.” In fact, in his textual commentary on this81
    variant, Metzger says, “The Western reading, ‘This day I have begotten thee,’ which was widely
    current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps. 2.7.” Once82
    again it is not a case of trying to convince anyone of which reading is original, but to demonstrate
    how Ehrman selectively reports the data and does not allow his readers to have a fair and
    accurate picture of the text or of the text critical situation. For some strange reason, in his
    emphasis on the scribal tendencies to harmonize, Ehrman conveniently omits the possibility that
    this text could have been changed to bring it into harmony with Ps. 2:7. It seems that Ehrman’s
    tendencies are more readily identifiable than the tendencies of the scribes.83
    Jn. 1:18
    Concluding his section on the antiadoptionistic alterations of the text, Ehrman deals with
    the statement in Jn. 1:18 that, in the critical text, reads, “ No one has seen God at any time; the
    27
    Qeo;n oujdei;” eJwvraken pwvpote: monogenh;” qeo;” oJ w]n eij” to;n kovlpon tou’ patro;” ejkei’no”84
    ejxhghvsato.
    oJ monogenh;” uiJov”, oJ w]n eij” to;n kovlpon tou’ patro;” ejkei’no” ejxhghvsato.85
    Ehrman, 162.86
    Ibid., 164.87
    Ibid., 129.88
    Ibid., 159.89
    Ibid., 131.90
    only begotten God [monogenh;” qeo;”] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”84
    The alternate reading to which Ehrman refers is, “the only begotten Son [oJ monogenh;” uiJov”] who
    is in the bosom of the Father . . .” The difference here is between the use of the word ‘God’ or85
    ‘Son.’ Ehrman asserts, “Could it be a textual variant created by a scribe in Alexandria and
    popularized there? If so, that would explain why the vast majority of manuscripts from
    everywhere else have the other reading, in which Jesus is not called the unique God, but the
    unique Son.” There is a bit of irony and humor in this assertion. Basically, what Ehrman is86
    saying is that the earliest reading is more likely to be found in the great majority of mss. An
    Alexandrian scribe supposedly changed uiJov” to qeov” at some early stage, and that is why uiJov”
    appears, as Ehrman phrases, in “the vast majority of manuscripts from everywhere else . . .” In
    other words, because uiJov” is early, it appears in the vast majority of mss. But this is the very kind
    of argument that is one of the primary principles behind the Byzantine-Majority text, a text that
    Ehrman consistently rejects as having any significance.
    Ehrman demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Trinity, or else he is
    presenting this argument in hopes that those who do not understand the Trinity might be
    persuaded to accept his agenda. He says, “The term unique in Greek means ‘one of a kind.’ There
    can be only one who is one of a kind. The term unique God must refer to God the Father himself
    —otherwise he is not unique. But if the term refers to the Father, how can it be used of the
    Son?” Of course the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the unique, one-of-a-kind God.87
    The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—three Persons, one unique God.
    Notice that there is no consideration of the “arguments based on evidence” in which
    Ehrman asserts, “It is far more likely that the oldest form of the text will be found in the oldest
    surviving manuscripts—on the premise that the text gets changed more frequently with the
    passing of time.” What about the predominating principle in the previous section in which88
    Ehrman dealt with Lk. 3:22: ““As we have seen, scribes typically try to harmonize texts rather
    than take them out of harmony; it is therefore the form of the text that differs from Mark that is
    more likely to be original in Luke,” or the internal evidence that “the ‘more difficult’ reading is89
    more likely to be original.” Ehrman offers no reasoning why these canons of textual criticism90
    28
    Ibid., 162.91
    Ibid.92
    Ibid., 165.93
    Ibid., 166.94
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 150.95
    are not persuasive in his argument. He merely floats the extremely speculative assertion, “Could
    it be a textual variant created by a scribe in Alexandria and popularized there?”91
    Apparently Ehrman recognized the implications of an early antiadoptionist theological
    alteration to his thesis that orthodoxy is merely the result of the fact that Christianity, as we now
    have it, won the socio-political struggle. To have such and orthodox alteration before there was
    orthodoxy presents a counter-example to his thesis, so it becomes necessary for him to mediate
    the impact to his own argument by referring to this as “an antiadoptionistic change of the text
    made by proto-orthodox scribes of the second century.” But, if this is some kind of proto-92
    orthodoxy, how then do we explain is popularity? Its popularity would be predicated on the fact
    that many people had an understanding of what was and was not orthodox. Additionally, Ehrman
    does not even make the case concerning how this variant could be antiadoptionistically
    motivated. In the literature, the Jn. 1:18 passage does not seem to have played much of a part, if
    any, in the Adoptionistic-Monarchian controversy.
    Antidocetic Changes
    Lk. 22:17-20
    Interestingly, in attempting to demonstrate the existence of antidocetic changes, Ehrman
    again appeals to D, Codex Bezae, as “one of our oldest Greek manuscripts.” He is very cunning93
    in the way he presents the problem. After quoting the section following the D manuscript, he
    asserts, “In most of our manuscripts, however, there is an addition to the text, an addition that
    will sound familiar to many readers of the English Bible, since it has made its way into most
    modern translations.” Metzger points out that there is an “overwhelming preponderance of94
    external evidence supporting the longer form . . .” (see Figure 4 below, also see Appendix,95
    page 44, for some information on the witnesses for each reading and the dates associated with
    these witnesses). In the way Ehrman states the case he prejudices the reader to think of the
    material in question as an “addition” to the original text that has “made its way,” somehow, into
    our English translations. But, if this material is original, it not an “addition,” and the reason it is
    in our English translations is because it is original. Ehrman attempts to poison the well with his
    wording.
    The material in question includes the latter part of verse 19 and verse 20: “‘This is My
    body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the
    29
    tou’tov ejstin to; sw’mav mou to; uJpe;r uJmw’n didovmenon: tou’to poiei’te eij” th;n ejmh;n96
    ajnavmnhsin. kai; to; pothvrion wJsauvtw” meta; to; deipnh’sai, levgwn: tou’to to; pothvrion hJ kainh;
    diaqhvkh ejn tw’/ ai{mativ mou to; uJpe;r uJmw’n ejkcunnovmenon.
    Ehrman, 166. Homoioteleuton means, “same ending.” It occurs when two words,97
    phrases, or lines end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the
    first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words.
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 149-50. Metzger also quotes G. Kenyon and S. C. E.98
    Legg’s explanation of the rise of the shorter version (see Appendix 1, page 44).
    Ehrman, 167.99
    cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My
    blood.’” In support of his claim that these verses are not part of the original text of Luke,96
    Ehrman says, “For one thing, it is hard to explain why a scribe would have omitted the verses if
    they were original to Luke (there is no homoeoteleuton, for example, that would explain an
    omission), especially since they make such clear and smooth sense when they are added.”97
    What is “difficult” for Ehrman is apparently not difficult for other textual critics who
    have at least equal competency in the field. Metzger asserts, “The rise of the shorter version can
    be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i.e., in order to protect the Eucharist
    from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation
    among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.” In98
    other words, this was not an antidocetic alteration, but an adaptation for public use. It is very
    unlikely that Ehrman is unfamiliar with either of these explanations, but he does not bother to
    provide this information to his reader, implying that there is no reasonable explanation for the
    rise of the shorter version. Ehrman argues that the material was added, “to stress Jesus’s (sic) real
    body and flesh, which he really sacrificed for the sake of others.” Citing an apologetic argument99
    from Tertullian, Ehrman seems to argue that just because the passage was used against Marcion,
    that this is sufficient to prove that it was added, whereas, it is much more likely that Tertullian
    referred to this material because it was authentic.
    Figure 4: Apparatus for Lk. 22:17-20
    30
    J
    O de; Pevtro” ajnasta;” e[dramen ejpi; to; mnhmei’on kai; parakuvya” blevpei ta; ojqovnia100
    movna, kai; ajph’lqen pro;” eJauto;n qaumavzwn to; gegonov”.
    Ehrman, 168.101
    This is almost identical to the situation with Lk. 22:17-20. The external evidence for102
    the authenticity of verse 12 includes Ì a A B L W D Q Y, many of the same minuscules and75
    the Byz. The evidence for its exclusion is limited to D and the Old Latin, it . Metzgera, b, e, l, r1
    explains the similarity with John 20 as “due to the likelihood that both evangelists had drawn
    upon a common tradition.” Metzger, Textual Commentary, 158. Of course it is also likely that
    Luke obtained his account from an eyewitness, and John, being an eyewitness, recorded the same
    event in the same manner.
    kai; ejgevneto ejn tw’/ eujlogei’n aujto;n aujtou;” dievsth ajp j aujtw’n kai; ajnefevreto eij” to;n103
    oujranovn. Kai; aujtoi; proskunhvsante” aujto;n uJpevstreyan eij” j Ierousalh;m meta; cara'” megavlh.
    Lk. 24:12
    Ehrman takes the same strategy with yet another passage in Luke’s Gospel. He calls into
    question the authenticity of verse 12 of chapter 24: “But Peter got up and ran to the tomb;
    stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home,
    marveling at what had happened.” First, he argues that the passage “contains a large number of100
    stylistic features found nowhere else in Luke, including most of the key words of the text, for
    example, ‘stooping down’ and ‘linen clothes’ (a different word was used for Jesus’s burial
    clothes earlier in the account).” However, arguments based on stylistics are always highly101
    subjective. One very good reason why the words ‘stooping down’ (parakuvya”) and ‘linen
    clothes’ (ojqovnia) are not found anywhere else in Luke’ Gospel may be because a similar event
    does not occur in Luke’s Gospel that would give rise to the use of these terms.
    Again Ehrman appeals to a variant without identifying any of the evidence supporting the
    reading he prefers. As before, this is a case of choosing D and the Old Latin over an
    overwhelming amount of external evidence. It is seems increasingly unlikely that Ehrman is102
    actually attempting to demonstrate the practice of textual criticism. Rather, he seems to be
    attempting to persuade his audience to doubt the authenticity of the NT documents by a slanted
    and calculated presentation of the situation.
    Lk. 24:51-52
    Ehrman’s last variant in the section on antidocetic changes is Lk. 24:51-52: “While He
    was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they, after
    worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” The variant in question is the material103
    contaned at the end of verse 51, “and was carried up into heaven” (kai; ajnefevreto eij” to;n
    oujranovn). Ehrman’s entire criticism of this phrase is based on his assumption that this account of
    Christ’s ascension and the account in Acts 1 are at odds. Ehrman asserts, “surely he [Luke]
    31
    Ehrman, 169.104
    William Hindriksen, An Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids:105
    Baker Book House, 1978), 1076.
    In each of Ehrman’s arguments thus far, the weight of his conclusion rests upon106
    internal rather than external criteria—I hesitate to say evidence. One begins to wonder whether
    he is in fact a reasoned eclectic, or a thoroughgoing eclectic. This suspicion seems to be fortified
    by the fact that in his arguments concerning variants in Lk. 22:17-20, 24:12, and 24:51-52 he
    completely ignores the overwhelming external evidence, he does not offer any reasons for not
    weighing the external evidence, and his arguments are based on purely internal considerations—
    mostly speculation.
    would not think Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of his resurrection if he indicates at the
    beginning of his second volume that he ascended forty days later.” Ehrman’s assumption that104
    the ascension as recorded in Luke took place on the same day as the resurrection is contradicted
    by the text of Luke itself. In 24:13-29, the account of Jesus’ confrontation with the two men on
    the road to Emmaus, the two men encourage Jesus to stay with them: “Stay with us, for it is
    getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over” (24:29). From this point, there are
    temporal markers that connect the following events right through to verse 43. But, beginning
    with verse 44, the temporal markers are absent, and there is no indication as to precisely when
    the events in verses 44-49 occurred. In fact, these verses could be a summary statement of
    teaching that took place over several days. So, by the time we reach verse 50 and the opening
    statement, “And He led them out as far as Bethany . . .” in relation to the previously recorded
    events, there is no indication as to when this occurred.
    William Hendriksen understands verse 49 to be parallel to Acts 1:4 (see below). Coupled
    with the statement in Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the
    Holy Spirit not many days from now,” the ascension account, as Hendirksen points out, “follows
    very naturally.”105
    Lk. 24:49 Acts 1:4
    “And behold, I am sending forth the promise
    of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in
    the city until you are clothed with power from
    on high.”
    Gathering them together, He commanded
    them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for
    what the Father had promised, “Which,” He
    said, “you heard of from Me;”
    Unless one assumes a conflict, there is no reason to conclude that the ascension in Luke
    24 is not the same event that Luke records in Acts 1. Without the least hint that there are contrary
    views that harmonize the two accounts, and without the least evidence to support his assertion,
    Ehrman employs his assumption, against overwhelming external evidence, as the basis for
    claiming that this is another instance of antidocetic changes in the text. Thus far, not one of his
    arguments is convincing.106
    32
    Ehrman, 145.107
    Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament108
    Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 67.
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 594.109
    Ibid.110
    Antiseparationist Changes
    Heb. 2:9
    Ehrman’s first example of an antiseparationist change is Heb. 2:9, which he dealt with at
    some length in chapter 5. In chapter 5 Ehrman argued, “Although almost all the surviving
    manuscripts state that Jesus died for all people ‘by the grace of God’ (CHARITI THEOU [cavriti
    qeou’]), a couple of others state, instead, that he died ‘apart from God’ (CHÔRIS THEOU [cwri'”
    qeou’]. There are good reasons for thinking that the latter, however, was the original reading of
    the Epistle of the Hebrews.” Apart from the obvious contradiction to his own thesis that “we107
    don’t have the original,” and the implication that we cannot know the original, there are serious
    problems, not unlike all of his previous attempts, for opting for the second reading, “apart from
    God.”
    First of all, the only support for the second reading, “apart from God,” includes a 10th
    century Uncial, 0243, a12 or 13 century minuscule, 424 , 1739 , the Latin, and some fathers.th th cvid txt
    The ‘c’ in the superscript letters following 424 indicates the reading is the result of a corrector,
    and the superscript ‘vid’ indicates that the reading is such that complete verification of the
    reading is impossible. By contrast, the first reading, “by the grace of God,” is supported by Ì ,46
    part of the Chester Beatty Papyrus concerning which Philip Comfort says, “On the whole, the
    text of Ì is fairly reliable. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent46
    exemplar.” Also, the support for this reading is similar to the overwhelming support for the108
    readings Ehrman rejects in the other Luke passages he discusses. Metzger points out that the first
    reading “is very strongly supported by good representatives of both the Alexandrian and the
    Western types of text (Ì a A B C D 33 81 330 614 it vg cop al), a rather large number of46 sa, bo, fay
    Fathers, both Eastern and Western, as well as 0121b 424 1739* vg syr , read cwri;” qeou’.”c ms pmss 109
    Metzger also claims that the second reading, “apart from God,” arose “either through a scribal
    lapse, misreading cavriti as cwriv”, or, more probably, as a marginal gloss (suggested by 1 Cor
    15.27) to explain that ‘everything’ in verse. 8 does not include God: this gloss, being erroneously
    regarded by a later transcriber as a correction of cavriti qeou’, was introduced into the text of ver.
    9.” Yet Metzger does not propose that this is an intentional, theologically motivated alteration.110
    Ehrman asserts that one of the documents that supports the second reading “(Ms. 1739) is
    known to have been produced from a copy that was at least as ancient as our earliest
    33
    Ehrman, 145.111
    Comfort, 89.112
    Ehrman, 146.113
    Ibid., 147 (emphasis in original).114
    Ibid., 170.115
    manuscripts.” Ehrman is referring to the fact that Gunther Zuntz demonstrated a textual111
    affinity with Ì and, according to Philip Comfort, “was copied from a fourth-century46
    manuscript of excellent quality.” However, Comfort also qualifies these assertions by noting that
    this applies to the Pauline epistles only: “According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the
    Pauline epistles followed a manuscript which came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus
    and which contained an Origenian text.” Once again Ehrman has engaged in selective112
    reporting.
    Of course Metzger’s explanation of the rise of the second reading is the very explanation
    that Ehrman rejects. Yet Ehrman’s question, “Is a negligent or absentminded scribe likely to have
    changed his text by writing a word used less frequently in the New Testament (‘apart from’) or
    one used more frequently (‘grace,’ four times as common)?” is patently ridiculous. The very113
    notion that the scribe is “negligent” and “absentminded,” or in Metzger’s term “a scribal lapse”
    and a “misreading,” precludes the possibility that the scribe is thinking about which word is more
    or less frequently used in the New Testament? If the scribe is involved in thinking about what is
    or is not more frequently used, then he is not really being “negligent” or “absentminded.” The
    term “absentminded,” by definition means “absent of mind,” or “not thinking.” But, an
    absentminded misreading is not a misreading that absentmindedly selects a word which is more
    frequent. Rather, an absentminded misreading is a misreading of the letters of the word without
    thinking about it.
    Second of all, Ehrman asserts, “In sum, it is extremely difficult to account for the phrase
    apart from God if the phrase by the grace of God was the original reading of Heb. 2:9.” Again,114
    besides the fact that this is an extremely subjective characterization—just because it is difficult
    for Ehrman does not mean it is difficult in itself or to everyone else—that it is difficult for
    Ehrman may be because he cannot see past his a prior assumptions and bias against the integrity
    of the NT mss.
    Ehrman begins his discussion of the supposed antiseparationist alterations by tying the
    separationist Christology with the Gnostics: “This separationist Christology was most commonly
    advocated by groups of Christians that scholars have called Gnostic.” But the rise of the115
    second reading, “apart from God,” post-dates the Gnostic controversies by several hundred years.
    Most historians of Christian doctrine, such as Jaroslav Pelikan and Eirc Osborn, relegate the
    Gnostic controversy to the early church fathers. In fact, Osborn talks about “The defeat of
    34
    Eric Osborn, “The Greco-Roman World: Challenge and Response,” in The Patristic116
    Period, vol. 1, History of Theology, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and Basil Studer, trans. Matthew J.
    O’Connell (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 107.
    Reinhold Seeberg, History of Doctrines in the Ancient Church, vol. 1, Text-Book of the117
    History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), 108.
    Sebastian P. Brock, “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual118
    Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (Grand Rapids:
    William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 230.
    Gnosticism” by the early church fathers, and Montanism, which is usually treated as116
    associated with the Gnostic controversy, is said to have disappeared by the sixth century.117
    Consequently, it seems strange that if this passage were an important point in favor of gnostic
    doctrine, that the scribes would not have made efforts to change the reading much earlier than the
    10 century—and we have no evidence that the variant in the existing documents dates to thisth
    time—or at least some time during the actual controversy. Why would the scribes wait until the
    10 century, and why not make more expansive changes. The so-called theologically altered textth
    is confined to an extremely small number of late mss.
    It is interesting that the Syriac Bible printed by the United Bible Societies in 1979 reads,
    Ah l A » hTw b yf»b, “by the grace of God.” As the textual apparatus of the UBS shows, the fifth4
    century Peshitta (syr ), as well as three other Syriac versions from the fifth and sixth centuries,p
    had the reading “by the grace of God.” Sebastian Brock points out that the Peshitta tradition
    seems divided between east and west on this reading. But he attributes this to the Christological
    controversies of the fifth century, not, as Ehrman does, to the Gnostic controversy that took place
    much earlier. “Evidently, then, the reading ‘apart from God’ (already known to Narsai in the late
    5 century) was introduced into the Peshitta tradition of the Church of the East under theth
    influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia [350-426 AD]—the ‘exegete’ par excellence of that
    tradition.” In his enthusiasm to evoke in his readers a mistrust of the New Testament, Ehrman118
    has constructed a scenario that does not coincide with the historical facts. It is very unlikely that
    this is an antiseparationist alteration. The facts seem to indicate that if this was an intentional
    change at all, and there is no evidence even for this possibility, it would more likely have been a
    change in the later manuscripts to support a separationist Christology in these later controversies.
    Mk. 15:34
    Ehrman next refers to a variant in Mk. 15:34 as another antiseparationist alteration: “A
    second intriguing example of the phenomenon occurs almost exactly where one might expect to
    find it, in a Gospel account of Jesus’s crucifixion. . . . The soldiers crucify him, the passers-by
    and Jewish leaders mock him, as do the two criminals who are crucified with him; and he says
    not a word—until the very end, when death is near, and Jesus cries out the words taken from
    Psalm 22: ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani,’ which translated means ‘My God, my God, why have
    35
    Ibid., 172.119
    Ibid., 173.120
    Ibid.121
    Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” §40.122
    you forsaken me?’ (Mark 15:34).” Ehrman then argues that the Gnostics referred to this verse119
    as evidence of their separationist theology. Because of this, according to Ehrman, “It is perhaps
    no great surprise, then, that the text of Mark’s Gospel was changed by some scribes in a way that
    would have circumvented this Gnostic explanation.” Interestingly, the variant to which Ehrman120
    is referring reads, “lama zafqani,” and appears in Codex D, which heretofore has been the codex
    of choice for Ehrman. Suddenly now, he acknowledges that the evidence does support this D
    reading because, “nearly all our oldest and best witnesses (including those of the Alexandrian
    text) . . .” Of course this is a strikingly similar situation to the supposedly antiadoptionist and121
    antidocetist alterations which likewise appeared only in D against the overwhelming support of
    the so-called “oldest and best witnesses (including those of the Alexandrian text).” Yet in those
    earlier instances Ehrman took a completely different position.
    Why discuss this variant? Because, as do the other discussions, it supposedly serves
    Ehrman’s purpose of demonstrating the tendency of scribes to alter the text for theological
    purposes. But in fact his plan seems to backfire in this case. Because the variant is so obviously
    not original, it actually serves to demonstrate that even when there seems to be a reasonable case
    for acknowledging a theologically motivated alteration, the alteration is so obviously unoriginal,
    and so completely overwhelmed by the unchanged witnesses, that it is easy enough to spot, and
    the original reading is not difficult to identify. As Maurice Robinson observes,
    an error or deliberate alteration made in a single MS or a few MSS is unlikely to be
    perpetuated in quantity. The many singular and quasi-singular readings which exist
    demonstrate the unlikelihood of a transcriptionally-based scribal creation extending much
    beyond any MS or MSS which first produced it. The chances that any sensible alteration
    subsequent to the autograph would extend beyond a small group of localized witnesses
    would be slim. Indeed, such readings as characterize minority texttype witnesses generally
    remain small and localized. That any deliberate alteration or transcriptional error would
    gain the cooperation of scribes so as to dominate the entire stream of transmission is a null
    proposition: scribes demonstrably did not engage in such a practice on the grand scale.
    Earlier exemplars would serve to nullify the growth and widespread dissemination of most
    scribal alterations, thus holding in check the unbridled mass of minority variants.122
    In other words, intentional changes motivated by a theological agenda, if there are such,
    would not be propagated through the stream of transmission of the NT mss, and should not
    become the basis upon which to challenge the authenticity of the text. This variant is a case in
    point. The variant does not go beyond this localized area and is not propagated throughout the
    36
    Ehrman, 178.123
    ejn touvtw/ ginwvskete to; pneu’ma tou’ qeou’: pa’n pneu’ma o} oJmologei’ j Ihsou’n Cristo;n ejn124
    sarki; ejlhluqovta ejk tou’ qeou’ ejstin, kai; pa’n pneu’ma o} mh; oJmologei’ to;n j Ihsou’n ejk tou’ qeou’
    oujk e[stin: kai; tou’tov ejstin to; tou’ ajnticrivstou, o} ajkhkovate o{ti e[rcetai, kai; nu’n ejn tw’/ kovsmw/
    ejsti;n h[dh.
    Ehrman, 174.125
    Ibid., 175.126
    Ibid.127
    stream of transmission. In other words, this variant was not reproduced by subsequent scribes,
    and it did not influence the continuing transmission of the text. Ehrman asserts that intentional
    changes “had a profound effect on the text.” Contrary to what Ehrman claims, such changes,123
    even if there are some, are few and did not have a profound influence on the text. This is evident
    from their exiguous representation in the manuscripts themselves. Consequently, they do not
    affect the overall authenticity of the manuscripts, and there is no basis upon which they should
    become the grounds for doubting the reliability of the mass of NT documents.
    1 Jn. 4:2-3
    The last variant Ehrman considers in the section on antiseparationist alterations is
    1 Jn. 4:2-3, which reads, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that
    Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not
    from God; this is the spirit of the anti-Christ, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now
    it is already in the world.” Ehrman points out that the variant is in fact only a marginal note124
    and not a variant of the text itself. Yet, even after this acknowledgement, Ehrman continues to
    refer to it as a variant. This would be like saying that the notes someone writes in the margin of
    his Bible are textual variants. In fact, Ehrman asserts that a scribe may have written this in the
    margin “to provide a ‘biblical’ attack on separationist Christologies . . .” But, is this in fact a125
    biblical attack? The fact that Ehrman puts this word in quotation marks indicates that he is not
    using the word in the strict sense of being an attack that comes from the text of the Bible itself.
    Yet, only a few lines later he declares, “Anyone who supports such a view, the textual variant
    suggests, is not from God . . .” But didn’t we already establish that this is not a textual variant?126
    The he says, “Once again, then, we have a variant that was generated in the context of the
    christological disputes of the second and third centuries.” Ignoring for a moment that fact that127
    the Heb. 2:9 variant was most probably not a second or third century variant, as we have seen, it
    is simply false to imply that this instance is like all the others. This is not a textual variant, and
    among the variants that Ehrman has discussed, this is not like any of the others. It is simply
    misleading to say, “Once again . . .” as if this marginal note is just another example like all the
    others.
    37
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 645.128
    Blomberg, “Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:”129
    Wallace, “A Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:”130
    The UBS includes this passage in the textual apparatus, and in his textual commentary4
    Metzger points out that, “The origin of luvei [he looses] is probably to be sought in second
    century polemic against Gnostics who made a distinction between the earthly Jesus and the
    heavenly Christ.” What is interesting about this is, if this was, as Ehrman says, a marginal note128
    in 1739, why did it not end up in the text? If Ehrman’s thesis is correct, that scribes tended to
    change the text for theological purposes, why did not a single scribe put this marginal note into
    the text of some manuscript? This seems to be evidence that Ehrman’s thesis is questionable at
    best.
    Conclusion About Theologically Motivated Alterations
    Contrary to what Ehrman proposes, every one of his so-called theologically motivated
    alterations is subject to contrary evaluations, and for almost every one, the evidence just does not
    support Ehrman’s conclusions. As one evaluator of Ehrman’s book observes, Ehrman’s
    propensity to exaggerate, and his strategic wording, leave “the uninitiated likely to think there are
    numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not.” And as129
    Daniel Wallace points out in his evaluation of Ehrman’s book, “the idea that the variants in the
    NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a
    scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to
    fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is
    wrong.”130
    The Social Worlds of the Text
    In this chapter Ehrman plans to examine the social impact upon the transmission of the
    text of the New Testament, examining certain textual variants that reflect this impact. He begins
    by providing a brief survey of his understanding of the role of women in the church, and he
    moves toward considering the impact of Paul’s view on the transmission of the NT mss. What is
    particularly amazing about this brief survey is how matter-of-factly Ehrman presents the
    historical situation. He speaks as if he had never said we cannot know the original text. He refers
    to Paul’s writings as if he believes they are historically accurate. And where is he getting this
    historically accurate information?—from the very New Testament documents concerning which
    he has said, “we don’t have the originals.” Ehrman writes as if he believes our NT in its present
    form presents accurate historical information, which is, in fact, the very point he is trying to
    deny.
    38
    Ehrman, 183.131
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 499.132
    Ehrman, 183.133
    Ibid.134
    Wallace, “A Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:”135
    Textual Alteration Involving Women
    1 Cor. 14:34-35
    The first text with which Ehrman is concerned occurs in 1 Corinthians chapter 14.
    Ehrman observes, “No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. But there are doubts
    about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (34-35) are shuffled around in some
    of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses,
    they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40.” Once again Ehrman has131
    selected a variant for which the evidence is almost completely one-sided—that is, one-sided
    against his view. Supporting the traditional location, after verse 33, are almost all of the
    Alexandrian mss including Ì a A B U 0150 0243, several minuscules and Byz. So, not only are46
    there a vast majority of witnesses that support the traditional placement, but the witnesses are
    widespread over the geographical spectrum. The witnesses supporting the placement after verse
    40 include, not unexpectedly, D, Codex Bezae, as well as F and G Greek mss, and several Latin
    versions. F Codex Augiensis is a ninth century ms, which, like D, is classified as Western, as is
    G Codex Boernerianus, another ninth century manuscript. As Metzger points out, this may have
    been an intentional effort on the part of a scribe “to find a more appropriate location in the
    context for Paul’s directive concerning women.” It is worth noting that Metzger attributes132
    these verses to Paul, not to some other author. Once again, as Robinson has shown, such
    intentional alterations do not last and do not have a significant impact on the transmissional
    history.
    On the strength of his own opinion, Ehrman declares, “The note was then inserted in
    different places of the text by various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others
    inserting it after verse 40.” As Ehrman has pointed out on at least two occasions, the words133
    communicate the meaning, and different words produce a different meaning, and Ehrman’s
    meaning is designed to mislead the reader into thinking that verses 34-35 following verse 22
    were “inserted” by a scribe into this location. Notice how he makes his claim: “some placing the
    note after verse 33.” This is misleading, because if the text is original, the scribe(s) did not
    “place” or “insert” it there, and Ehrman has certainly not shown that these verses are not original.
    Of course Ehrman thinks that they are not original to Paul, and one reason he thinks this is
    because he thinks, “they do not fit will into their immediate context.” But, as Daniel Wallace134
    has pointed out, “Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.” In this135
    39
    C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (San Francisco:136
    Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), 332.
    Ehrman, 184.137
    ajspavsasqe j Androvnikon kai; j Iounia’n tou;” suggenei'” mou kai; sunaicmalwvtou” mou,138
    oi{tinev” eijsin ejpivshmoi ejn toi'” ajpostovloi”, oi} kai; pro; ejmou’ gevgonan ejn Cristw’/.
    Ehrman, 185.139
    instance, he assumes that because he does not understand how they fit, they must not fit. C. K.
    Barrett, for example, argues that Paul is dealing with a specifically Corinthian phenomenon:
    (b)-Paul had been informed of feminist pressure (possibly of feminine chatter) which was
    contributing seriously to the disorder of the Christian assembly in Corinth, and took
    energetic measures to stamp it out. He cannot have disapproved on principle of
    contributions made by women to Christian worship and discussion or he would not have
    allowed xi. 5 to stand in his epistle, but in the interests of peace and good order he could
    command the women to be silent, precisely as he could give orders for a male prophet to be
    silent if his continued speech was likely to prove unedifying (verse 30). Sevenster (Seneca,
    p. 198) may be right in saying that ‘Paul is probably alluding in the first place to a passion
    for discussion which could give rise to heated argument between a wife and husband.’136
    Other scholars have argued for the continuity of these verses in their traditional location.
    The point is not necessarily to convince anyone that an explanation such as is given by Barrett is
    the best, but that Ehrman does not allow his readers to know that any other opinion or
    interpretation exists. Contrary to Ehrman’s assertion, one does not “have to assume” that these
    verses “are a scribal alteration of the text . . .” One is compelled to ask, “What about the most137
    difficult reading that was so much a part of Ehrman’s argument concerning the passage in Lk.
    3:23?” Conveniently, Ehrman does not entertain this question. Selective reporting allows the
    author to consider only those principles of textual criticism that promote his agenda.
    Rom. 16:7
    Ehrman believes that the variant occurring here is problematic, but it is problematic only
    if one makes assumptions that are not warranted or necessary. The text: “Greet Andronicus and
    Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also
    were in Christ before me.” It is problematic, according to Ehrman, because “Paul speaks of a138
    woman, Junia, and a man who was presumably her husband, Andronicus, both of whom he calls
    ‘foremost among the apostles’ (v. 7). This is a significant verse, because it is the only place in the
    New Testament in which a woman is referred to as an apostle.” Interestingly, Ehrman has not139
    demonstrated that his interpretation is necessarily or even likely the case. Some have proposed
    that the word “apostles” (ajpostovloi”) be understood in a more general way of a messenger of the
    40
    John Murray, Chapters 9 to 16, vol. 2, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm.140
    B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
    Company, 1977), 230 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
    John Chrysostom, Homilies of Romans, 31; cited in Gerald Bray, ed. Romans, vol. 6,141
    Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998),
73. That Chrysostom is taking this word in a general sense of “messenger of the Gospel” is
    indicated by the fact that in his Homily on St. Ignatius, translated by Steophens-Brandram, he
    refers to St. Ignatius as an apostle: “The martyr or the bishop or the apostle.” §2.
    Ehrman, 186.142
    Ibid., 186.143
    Gospel, but John Murray has pointed out, “Since, however, the term has usually in Paul the more
    restricted sense, it is more probable that the sense is that these persons were well known to the
    apostles and were distinguished for their faith and service.” Murray points to two other Pauline140
    passages, 2 Cor. 8:23 and Phil. 2:25, where the word ‘apostle’ (ajpovstolo”) could be understood
    in a general sense. Apparently John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407) had no problem in understanding
    this as a general rather than a technical use of the term. Commenting on this passage, Chrysostom
    says,
    It was the greatest of honors to be counted a fellow prisoner of Paul’s. . . . Think what great
    praise it was to be considered of note among the apostles. These two were of note because
    of their works and achievements. Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must
    have been, that she should be worthy to be called an apostle! But even here Paul does not
    stop his praise, for they were Christians before he was.141
    Once again Ehrman seems unwilling to allow his readers to know that there are other
    views that are held by scholars. The remaining examples to which Ehrman appeals suffer from
    the same problems. The Acts 17:4 variant that Ehrman translates, “wives of prominent men” is142
    a remarkable stretch. The wording, “gunaikw’n te tw’n prwvtwn oujk ojlivgai,” does not even
    contain the word ‘men.” This is an insertion into the text because of the genitive plural form of
    the word prwvtwn, which is the same form whether it is masculine, feminine, or neuter. Metzger
    argues that the change is probably the result of a copyist changing the less usual syntactical
    arrangement, “gunaikw’n te” (lit. “of women and”) with the more common construction “kai;
    gunai’ke”” (lit. “and women”). Additionally, the former reading is overwhelmingly supported by
    the manuscript witnesses, and, not surprisingly, the latter reading is supported by Codex D and
    several Latin versions.
    Ehrman’s claim that the alteration of the order of the names “Aquila and Priscilla” is a
    result of the “umbrage” of certain scribes, is a stretch even for Ehrman. Ehrman asserts, “Not
    surprisingly, scribes occasionally took umbrage at this sequence [Priscilla first and Aquila
    second] and reversed it.” Of the six instances in the new Testament in which these two names143
    41
    kai; euJrwvn gina j Ioudai’on ojnovmati j Akuvlan, Pontiko;n tw’/ gevnei prosfavtw”144
    ejlhluqovta ajpo; th'” j Italiva” kai; Privskillan gunai’ka aujtou’.
    2 Tim. 4:19 is not figured into the calculation because Swanson has not yet provided a145
    text on this NT book. However, it must be pointed out that neither of the standard critical
    apparatuses of NA and UBS indicate a textual variant here. The order in this text is “Priscilla27 4
    and Aquila.”
    occur, five of them have the construction, “name and name.” Acts 18:2 says, “And he found a
    Jew named Aquila , a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife
    Priscilla,” so it really does not figure into the question. Of the remaining five, only one, 1144
    Cor. 16:19, has the order “Aquila and Prica,” ( j Akuvla” kai; Privska). Since it is the case that
    there is only one instance of the alteration of the order, how does Ehrman justify saying that
    scribes “occasionally took umbrage at this sequence and reversed it”? As Swanson’s text shows
    (see Appendix 2, Figure 6, page 47), among the top 45 manuscripts there is a single instance in
    1 Cor. 16:19 in which the order was reversed, but the reversal is not from “Priscilla and Aquila”
    to “Aquila and Precilla” as Ehrman would have it. Rather, the reversal is the reverse. In fact,
    when comparing all the instances of the occurrence of the construction that are provided by
    Swanson, we discover that the distribution is fairly equal—54% have the F-M arrangement,145
    and 46% have the M-F arrangement (see Table #1 below). But, even this does not give the truest
    picture. In those individual passages in which there are variants, of which there are only two of
    the five (Acts 18:26 and 1 Cor. 16:19; there is no textual variant listed for 2 Tim. 4:19), that are
    set out in comparative lines by Swanson, the change always seems toward placing “Pricilla” first.
    In other words, if these are intentional changes, then the intent seems to be toward reversing the
    order from M-F to F-M. Contrary to Ehrman’s proposal, the evidence does not support the
    contention that scribes tended to change the order from F-M to M-F because of some supposed
    scribal “umbrage.” Rather, this seems to be a misrepresentation of the facts as a result of the
    author’s own umbrage.
    Table #1: Arrangement of the Names Pricilla and Aquila
    Passages Numbers of Mss Fem-Mas Arrangement Mas-Fem Arrangement
    Acts 18:19 45 mss 45 with F-M
    Acts 18:26 45 mss 6 with F-M 39 with M-F
    1 Cor. 16:19 45 mss 1 with F-M 44 with M-F
    Rom. 16:3 45 mss 45 with F-M
    2 Tim. 4:19 Not in Swanson 1 with F-M
    Totals 97 with F-M – 54% 83 with M-F – 46%
    42
    Ehrman, 191, “Scholarly opinion has long been divided on the question.”146
    to;n de; j Ihsou’n fragellwvsa” parevdwken i{na staurwqh’/.147
    Ehrman, 194.148
    Anti-Jewish Alterations
    Lk. 23:34
    Ehrman begins this section by calling attention to the variant in Lk. 23:34. In this instance
    Ehrman seems to present the evidence fairly, and to argue his point cogently. The manuscript
    testimony for and against the reading is such that the textual critic’s ultimate decision will most
    probably be made on the basis of his text critical philosophy. Those who espouse reasoned
    ecclecticism are divided on this variant, as Ehrman points out, that is, on whether or not it is146
    original. Those who espouse a majority view include the text because it is supported not only by
    the vast majority of mss, indicated by Byz, but because it is also supported by significant
    Alexandrian witnesses as well. Here there seems to be a legitimate case for discussion, and
    Ehrman’s arguments ought to be given due weight. But this is precisely the point. The evidence
    is such that it does not seem to justify the confidence that Ehrman places in his conclusion, and
    the fact that there are other reasonable and equally convincing arguments for the opposing view
    held by equally competent scholars means that Ehrman’s conclusion, that this is necessarily some
    anti-Jewish alteration, is not as certain as he would have his readers think.
    Matt. 27:26
    The variant with which Erman is concerned here is the presence or absence of the
    personal pronoun “them” in Matt. 27:26: “but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over
    to be crucified.” The alternate reading has the personal pronoun: “But after having Jesus147
    scourged, he handed Him over to them [aujtoi'”] to be crucified.” Ehrman argues, “Pilate is said
    to have flogged Jesus and then ‘handed him over to be crucified.’ Anyone reading the text would
    naturally assume that he handed Jesus over to his own (Roman) soldiers for crucifixion. That
    makes it all the more striking that in some early witnesses—including one of the scribal
    corrections in Codex Sinaitius—the text is changed to heighten even further the Jewish
    culpability in Jesus’s death.” But this proposal falls flat with the statement in the very next148
    verse: “Then the soldiers of the governor [oiJ stratiw’tai tou’ hJgemovno”] took Jesus into the
    Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around Him” (Matt. 27:27). The presence of
    this personal pronoun could not persuade any intelligent reader to think that Pilate was handing
    Jesus over to the Jews when the very next verse states that it was the soldiers of Pilate, the
    governor, who took Jesus away! It seems as if Ehrman is really having to stretch the boundaries
    of credulity to find passages to support his claim of anti-Jewish alterations.
    43
    Ibid.149
    Ibid.150
    Ibid.151
    Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and152
    Restoration, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50.
    movnoi” toi'” iJereu’sin; Th’/ aujth’/ hJmevra/ qeasavmenov” tina ejrgazovmenon tw’/ sabbavtw/ ei\pen153
    aujtw’/ [ Anqrwpe, eij me;n oi\da” tiv poiei'”, makavrio” ei\: eij de; mh; oi\da”, ejpikatavrato” kai;
    Other Supposed Anti-Jewish Alterations
    Ehrman says, “Sometimes anti-Jewish variants are rather slight and do not catch one’s
    attention until some thought is give to the matter.” To try to prove his point, Ehrman refers to a149
    reading found in one ancient Syriac version, but the way he words this observation is misleading.
    He says, “It is striking that in one manuscript preserved in Syriac tradition, the text instead says
    ‘because he will save the world from its sins.” The way he says this implies that there is in fact150
    a textual variant in the New Testament that the Syriac has somehow preserved. But there is no
    extant evidence that this is the case. In fact, the Peshitta does not read “the world” [am£l[£] but
    “his people [hm°[ál]” where the Lãmadh (l) serves as the indicator of the object. Ehrman goes on
    to say, “Here again it appears that a scribe was uncomfortable with the notion that the Jewish
    people would ever be saved.” But this has nothing to do with the “scribes” as Ehrman has been151
    using that term throughout his book to refer to the transcribers of New Testament manuscripts,
    and the expression “here again” implies that this is a situation like the others he has discussed.
    These kinds of expressions seem to be calculated to lead the reader astray. Ehrman then goes off
    on another Syriac manuscript which has nothing to do with manuscript variants in the New
    Testament, at least not without extensive explanation and clarification of the relationship
    between the Syriac versions and the history and transmission of the New Testament documents.
    Without these kinds of clarifications, the reader is left with the impression that these Syriac
    readings say something definitive about some supposed intentional, anti-Jewish changes in the
    New Testament manuscripts. In these instances it seems that the variant does not catch one’s
    attention until someone’s thought is imposed upon the text and a particular spin is spun.
    Ehrman’s final example by which he hopes to show anti-Jewish alterations is a lengthy
    insertion into the text of Luke chapter 6 that is found in D Codex Bezae—again. We have already
    been made aware of the character of this manuscript, that, according to Metzger, “No known
    manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the
    normal New Testament text. Codex Bezae’s special characteristic is the free addition (and
    occasional omission) of words, sentences, and even incidents.” The inserted portion reads, “On152
    the same day he [Jesus] saw a man working on the Sabbath, and he said to him, ‘O man, if you
    know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are cursed, and a
    transgressor of the Law.” Ehrman’s interpretation is not a necessary perspective either. He153
    44
    parabavth” ei\ tou’ novmou.
    Ehrman, 133.154
    asserts that in this text, “Jesus plainly states that anyone who knows why it is legitimate to
    violate Sabbath is blessed for doing so.” But this is nonsensical. If it is legitimate to work on the
    Sabbath, then how can it at the same time be illegitimate, that is, a violation of the Sabbath. But
    Jesus nowhere says it is legitimate to violate the Sabbath if you know what you are doing. This
    statement can be understood in a completely different way. The problem here is not the text, but
    Ehrman’s lack of understanding. The Sabbath was instituted in order to demonstrate the fact that
    salvation, that is, entering into God’s rest, was not on the basis of one’s works, but by resting in
    the completed work of God. If an individual does not understand the real significance of the
    Sabbath, and knows that the law says that one should not work on the Sabbath, and yet that
    individual works anyway, he is cursed. But, if a person understands that the Sabbath was
    designed by God to illustrate that entrance into God’s Sabbath rest was not on the basis of one’s
    own works, but on the completed work of God, and that person works on the basis of that truth,
    then he is blessed. In other words, if you know you are saved by grace, and you work from that
    position, you are blessed. But if you are under the law because you do not know that salvation is
    by grace, and you break the law, you are cursed. That this variant is motivated by anti-Jewish
    sentiment is not a necessary conclusion. A correct understanding of the passage drains this
    variant of any supposed anti-Jewish implications. But apart from the fact that Ehrman has
    completely misunderstood the passage, the evidence against it as original is, once again,
    overwhelming.
    Apologetic Alterations
    Mk. 1:41
    In an attempt to demonstrate intentional alterations in the text as a result of the struggle
    with pagan culture, Ehrman points to the variant in Mk. 1:41. This passages recounts Jesus
    healing a leper. The traditional text reads, “Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand
    and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’” The variant to which Ehrman
    appeals is found in the very beginning of the verse. In one manuscript—you guessed it— D
    Codex Bezae—and it is literally one manuscript—the word translated ‘compassion’
    (splagcnisqeiv”) is replaced by the word ‘became angry’ (ojrgisqeiv”). Ehrman dealt at length with
    this variant back in chapter 5. There he asserts, “The simple pathos and unproblematic emotion
    of the scene may well account for translators and interpreters, as a rule, not considering the
    alternative text found in some of our manuscripts.” Indeed, the fact that it is supported by the154
    overwhelming majority of extant manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, and church fathers might
    also have something to do with it. As we have seen throughout Ehrman’s examples so far, he
    argues for his reconstruction of the context and his interpretation of the text in preference to the
    objective evidence of the manuscripts. For all of what may on the surface seem to be a reasonable
    argument, there is simply no good, or even mediocre, reason to think that ojrgisqeiv” was the
    45
    For example, Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, ed., Questioning Q: A155
    Multidimensional Critique (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
    Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” §49.156
    oujc ou|tov” oJ tou’ tevktono” uiJov”Ú oujc hJ mhvthr aujtou’ levgetai Maria;m kai; oiJ ajdelfoi;157
    aujtou’ j Iavkwbo” kai; j Iwsh;f kai; Sivmwn kai; j Iouvda”ò
    Ehrman, 203.158
    Ibid.159
    original reading. Much of Ehrman’s argument rests of the assumption of the priority of Mark’s
    Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark’s account, but this hypothesis is by no means as
    secure as it once was, and many scholars simply reject the hypothesis altogether. It stretches155
    the imagination to accept the notion that all the other thousands of mss have perpetuated a single
    alteration of this text by this one scribe, and only D has retained the original reading. As
    Robinson points out,
74. A reading preserved in only a single MS, version or father is suspect. As with
    conjecture, it remains transmissionally unlikely that all MSS, versions, and fathers save one
    should have strayed from the original reading. Even if some witnesses are considered
    “best” within a given portion of text, it remains unlikely that any such witness standing
    alone would have preserved the original text against all other witnesses.156
    Mk. 6:3
    One wonders why Ehrman even considers this variant. Mk. 6:3 states, “Is not this the
    carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon
    and Judas?” The variant is found in Ì and some few other mss. Ehrman says, “In our157 45vid
    earliest manuscript of Mark’s Gospel, called P , which dates to the early third century (the time45
    of Origen), and in several later witnesses, the verse reads differently.” But Ehrman does not158
    alert the reader to the presence of the qualification in the manuscript evidence. The ‘vid,’ as we
    have seen indicates that the manuscript is in such a state that, although this is probably the
    reading, it is impossible to be certain. Consequently, Ehrman’s speculations about why these few
    mss have this reading are just that—uncertain speculations.
    Lk. 23:32
    Ehrman appeals to Lk. 23:32, which says, “Two others also, who were criminals, were
    being led away to be put to death with Him,” and he asserts, “the way the verse is worded in the
    Greek, it could also be translated, ‘Two others, who were also criminals, were led away to be put
    to death with him.’” He then proposes that some scribes “found it necessary, for apologetic159
    46
    Ibid.160
    reasons, to rearrange the word order, so that it unambiguously reports that it was the two others,
    not Jesus as well, who were criminals.” The “rearranging” to which Erhman refers is the160
    transposition of two words. This is shown in the following chart.
    Traditional text [ Hgonto de; kai; e{teroi kakou’rgoi duvo su;n aujtw’/ ajnaireqh’nai.
    Rearrangement [ Hgonto de; kai; e{teroi duvo kakou’rgoi su;n aujtw’/ ajnaireqh’nai.
    To illustrate the difference, the two versions will be put in interlinear format.
    Traditional text
    [
    Hgonto de; kai; e{teroi kakou’rgoi duvo su;n aujtw’/ ajnaireqh’nai.
    being led and also others criminals two together Him to be put to death
    away with
    Rearrangement
    [
    Hgonto de; kai; e{teroi duvo kakou’rgoi su;n aujtw’/ ajnaireqh’nai.
    being led and also others two criminals together Him to be put to death
    away with
    It is simply amazing, first of all, that Ehrman could get his translation from this text. The
    word that is translated “also” is the adjunctive kai;. This word is classified as a conjunction and is
    usually translated “and.” Ehrman implies that the arrangement of the words is such that the word
    kai; is modifying the word “criminals” (kakou’rgoi) resulting in the translation, “who were also
    criminals.” However, neither the original wording nor the rearrangement allow that possibility.
    This is simply a misrepresentation of the syntax.
    Also, the word translated “others” (e{teroi) is frequently, though certainly not always, used
    to indicate another of a different kind. The English prefix hetero- for words like heterogeneous,
    which indicates elements that are not of the same kind or nature, comes from this Greek word.
    There is another word that would more likely have been used to indicate others not necessarily
    different in kind, namely, a[llo”. Luke uses this word in 22:59 to refer to “another man.” Luke
    uses both of these words, and he frequently uses both words to indicate another of the same kind.
    But, in his Gospel, Luke does not use a[llo” to indicate something of a different kind, yet he does
    use e{tero” in this way in 9:29: “And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became
    different [e{teron]. . .” It is also likely that in Lk. 17:34 and 35 in which the same phrase is used,
    “one will be taken and the other [e{tero”] will be left,” that e{tero” is used to distinguish between
    these two kinds of people, the righteous and the unrighteous. Although this does not prove that
    the use of e{tero” in 23:32 must be taken in the sense of “a different kind,” this certainly seems
    likely, and it at least calls into question the likelihood that it should be translated as Ehrman has
    it. Nevertheless, Ehrman presents his speculation as if it is a demonstrable fact, which it is not.
    47
    Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” §41.161
    Ehrman, 204.162
    ouj mh; pivw ajp= a[rti ejk touvtou tou’ genhvmato” th'” ajmpevlou163
    Ibid., 56.164
    Robinson points out that haplography, the change of word order, is almost always simply
    a transcriptional error.
75. Transcriptional error is more likely to be the ultimate source of many sensible variants
    rather than deliberate alteration. Many variant readings have their root in transcriptional
    causes. While this principle includes all cases which produce pure “nonsense,” it also
    includes many in which the end result in some way “makes sense.” Sensible readings may
    arise from the simple omission of a letter, syllable, or word; so too readings produced by
    haplography, dittography, homoioteleuton or other forms of transcriptional error. Even an61
    error that produced a nonsense reading may result later in other sensible variants, created in
    an attempt to correct the earlier error.161
    The idea that this is some deliberate rearrangement of the words for some apologetic
    reasons is unlikely in the extreme.
    Other Variants
    Ehrman refers to a variant in Matt. 27:34 in which a few mss have “vinegar” rather than
    “wine,” and he speculates, “It is interesting to note that at the Last Supper, in Matt. 26:29, after
    distributing the cup of wine to his disciples, Jesus explicitly states that he will not drink wine
    again until he does so in the kingdom of the Father. Was the change of 27:34 from wine to
    vinegar meant to safeguard that prediction, so that he in fact did not taste wine after claiming that
    he would not?” Of course, this proposal is ludicrous. In 26:29 Jesus says, “I will not drink162
    [pivnw] of this fruit of the vine.” In 27:34 the text say Jesus tasted (geusavmeno”), but, “He was163
    unwilling to drink [pivnw].” Jesus never said He would not taste (geuvomai). He said He would not
    drink (pivnw). Some might say this is splitting hairs, but Ehrman has already stressed the fact that
    different words have different meanings, and “the only way to understand what an author wants
    to say is to know what his words—all his words—actually were.” That must have slipped his164
    mind when considering this verse.
    His appeal to the use of “you” in Mk. 14:62 with reference to the high priest is, once
    again, absurd. When Jesus says, “you will see [o[yesqe] the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
    of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” there is no reason to take this as a specific
    reference to the high priest, especially since the “you” is plural, not singular. Here the term “you”
    is simply a generic reference. English speaking people do this quite frequently: “When Jesus
    comes back you’re going to see Him in the sky.” In such expressions the “you” is a generic
    48
    Ehrman, 207.165
    Ibid., 208.166
    Wallace, “A Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:”167
    Blomberg, “Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus:”168
    Ehrman, 211.169
    reference used to refer to anyone who happens to do what is predicted. The speaker does not
    necessarily mean “you” in the strict sense, but you, whoever will be there at the time. In fact, on
    page 208 Ehrman says, “It would be wrong, however, to say—as some do—that the changes in
    our text have no real bearing . . .” Does Ehrman’s use of the word “our” mean that he thinks the
    text belongs to him? or that he is one of the ones who produced the text? Of course not.
    Similarly, the word “you” can be used in an indefinite sense. Contrary to his conclusion, Ehrman
    has not successfully demonstrated that any one of the variants he discusses must be seen, and in
    most cases even can be seen, as an intentional, apologetic alteration.
    Conclusion: Changing Scripture
    Ehrman begins his final chapter by recalling the personal testimony he presented in the
    “Introduction.” He states, “The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament,
    the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of
    scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” A 92% average stability165
    of the text does not seem to support the idea that the text has been “radically altered.” There is no
    question that the manuscripts differ from each other, but Ehrman asserts, “It would be wrong,
    however, to say—as some do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts
    mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them.” This is true, as far as it166
    goes, but there is a big difference between saying that the variants make a difference in the
    theological conclusions we draw from these particular texts, and to claim that the multitude of
    variants call into question the validity of our theology. As Daniel Wallace declares, “the idea that
    the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best.” Similarly167
    Craig Blomberg asserts, “No central tenet of Christianity hangs on any textually uncertain
    passage; this observation alone means that Christian textual critics may examine the variants that
    do exist dispassionately and without worrying that their faith is somehow threatened in the ways
    that Ehrman came to believe.”168
    Ehrman says that the more he studied the more he realized that the Scripture had been
    changed. This is a very odd assertion in light of the fact that he goes on to say, “we don’t have
    the original words.” How does Ehrman know we don’t have the original words? The fact that169
    there are over 200,000 variants among the existing mss does not mean that we do not have the
    original words. That is a non sequitur—it does not follow. Even though there are over 200,000
    variants among the existing mss, it is still possible that the original words are there in those
    49
    Ibid.170
    Ibid., 216-17.171
    Ibid., 56.172
    Ibid., 217.173
    manuscripts, and textual criticism is the way to find them. Remember, Robinson has shown that
    textual criticism is dealing with less that 8% of the entire New Testament. But, if we do not have
    the original words, as Ehrman claims, then there is no basis for Ehrman’s claim to know that “the
    words God reputedly inspired had been changed . . .” The only way to identify a change is to170
    know what has been changed. For Ehrman to know that the words God inspired have changed, he
    would have to know what those words were and be able to compare them with the words we
    have in order to identify the changes. But, if Ehrman knows those inspired words, then it is
    simply not true that we don’t have the original words. And if we don’t have the original words,
    then we have no basis upon which to make a comparison. This is the fallacy of the lost
    distinction. It is like saying, “The entire universe doubled in size last night.” Against what are
    you measuring? Or it is like saying, “You’re taking the universe out of context!” It is a
    nonsensical assertion.
    At first I could not grasp how an accomplished scholar like Ehrman could actually claim
    that the text has been radically changed, but then he explained what he meant. Apparently, when
    he talks about the text being changed, he is not necessarily making reference to the actual
    orthographic alterations in the letters and words of the documents. As he goes on to explain, “For
    the more I studied, the more I saw that reading a text necessarily involves interpreting a text. . . .
    Texts are interpreted, and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing
    human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their other
    knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the texts ‘in other words.’ Once
    readers put a text in other words, however, they have changed the words. . . And so to read a text
    is, necessarily, to change a text. That’s what the scribes of the New Testament did. They read the
    texts available to them and they put them in other words.” So, when Ehrman says the text has171
    been radically changed, he means that the text has been completely changed because of the fact
    that scribes read the text and put the text into other words.
    This claim certainly sounds contemporary, but it is nevertheless self-defeating. If it is
    true, as Ehrman asserts, that reading a text necessarily changes it, then this can never be known to
    be true. As soon as one reads a text, it has changed, so one could never know what the original
    text actually said, because the reader does not have the original text by which to make a
    comparison in order to know that what he has read and what the original text said are in fact
    different. Also, since the act of reading changed the text, according to Ehrman, to change the text
    is to change the meaning, since different words have different meanings: “the only way to
    understand what an author wants to say is to know what his words—all his words—actually
    were.” But, according to Ehrman, “to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text.” Although172 173
    50
    Ibid., 218.174
    Ibid.175
    the scribes changed the actual “physical words on the page,” we do not, but, according to174
    Ehrman, “we all change scripture, every time we read it.” There can be no doubt that Ehrman175
    has not only departed from his early commitments to Christianity, but he has also imbibed the
    Postmodern relativism so prevalent in the humanities departments. In the beginning of this paper
    I made the comment that only God knows Ehrman’s heart, but we ought to know his
    assumptions. Here is one of his foundational assumptions—Postmodern relativism.
    The International Society of Christian Apologetics
    © 2006 Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D.
    Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
    Southern Evangelical Seminary
    All rights reserved.
    51
    APPENDIX 1
    Textual Apparatus for Lk. 22:17-20
    Some of the Witnesses Supporting the Longer Reading
    Papyrus MSS
    ¸ Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, late second century – contains most of Luke, chapters 3 through75
    24, and John, chapters 1 through 15. Classified as Alexandrian.
    Uncial MSS
    a Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century. The only known complete New Testament in uncial script.
    Classified as Alexandrian.
    A Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century. Classified as Byzantine in the Gospels.
    B Codex Vaticanus, fourth century. Contains both the Old and New Testaments. Classified as
    Alexandrian.
    C Codex Ephraemi, fifth century. Classified as Byzantine.
    L Codex Regius, eighth century. Contains the Gospels. Classified as Alexandrian.
    Figure 5: Lk. 22:17-20
    UBS “Introduction,” 19.176 4
    52
    T Codex Borgianus, fifth century. Classified as Alexandrian. The superscript “vid” indicatesvid
    “The most probable reading of a manuscript where the state of its preservation makes
    complete verification impossible.”176
    W Codex of the four Gospels, fourth or early fifth century. The Gospel of Luke is classified as
    Byzantine.
    D Codex Sangallensis, ninth century, Greek and Latin text contains the four Gospels. Classified
    as Byzantine
    Q Codex Koridethi, ninth century, contains the Gospels. The Gospel of Luke is classified as
    Byzantine.
    Y Codex Athous Laurae, eighth or ninth century. The Gospels are classified as Byzantine.
    Minuscule MSS
    ƒ Family 1, a family of mss all of which date from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries.1
    Classified as mixed with some Byzantine some Caesarean.
    ƒ Family 13, a family of mss all of which date from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries.13
    Classified as mixed with some Byzantine and some Caesarean.
    157 . . . The numbered mss are minuscules, variously classified and variously dated.
    Byz This siglum stands for the Byzantine mss which include the vast majority dating from the
    fourth century.
    The Witnesses Supporting the Shorter Reading
    Uncial MS
    D Codex Bezae, also known as Cantabrigiensis. Includes Greek and Latin on facing pages. Dates
    from about the fourth century. Classified as Western.
    Versions
    it Old Latin versions:
    it – Fourth centurya
    it – Fifth to Sixth centuryd
    it – Fifth centuryft2
    it – Fifth to Sixth centuryi
    it – Eighth centuryl
    Explanation of the Rise of the Shorter Version
    Kenyon and Legg, who prefer the longer form of text, explain the origin of the other
    readings as follows: “The whole difficulty arose, in our opinion, from a misunderstanding
    of the longer version. The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves
    should be taken in connection with the previous verse (ver. 16) as referring to the eating of
    the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven. This is followed by the institution of the
    Metzger, Textual Commentary, 150, n2.177
    53
    Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of Him. This gives an intelligible
    meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would occasion
    difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revision that appear
    in various forms of the shorter version” (Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg in The
    Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley [London, 1937], pp. 285 f.)177
    Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 1 Corinthians (Wheaton,178
    Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003), 285.
    54
    APPENDIX 2
    The following chart is from Reuben Swanson, New Testament Manuscripts.178
    Using Swanson’s text, the other instances of the occurrence of the two names, “Aquila
    and Priscilla indicate the following results:
    Figure 6: 1 Cor. 16:19
    55
    Acts 18:19: The order is “Priscilla and Aquila” – No instances of haplography
    Acts 18:26: The predominate order is “Aquila and Priscilla” – Of the 11 lines of comparative
    text, 3 present the order “Priscilla and Aquila.” In other words, if there is
    intentional change here, the change does not appear to be in order to put the man
    first, but to put the woman first.
    1 Cor. 16:19: The predominate order is “Aquila and Priscilla” – Of the 30 lines of comparative
    text, 1 presents the order “Priscilla and Aquila.” In other words, if there is
    intentional change here, the change does not appear to be in order to put the man
    first, but to put the woman first.
    Rom. 16:3: The order is “Priscilla and Aquila” – No instances of haplography
    2 Tim. 4:19: The order is “Priscilla and Aquila” – No instances of haplography
    56
    APPENDIX 3
    The following chart is reproduced by permission from Maurice A. Robinson, “The
    Integrity of the Early New Testament Text,” (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Evangelical
    Theological Society: 57 Annual Meeting, 2005), 24.th
    57
    WORKS CONSULTED
    Aland, Kurt, et. al., ed. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
    1993.
    Aland, Barbara, et.al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
    Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
    Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. San Francisco: Harper &
    Row, Publishers, 1968.
    Berardino, Angelo Di, and Basil Studer, ed. The Patristic Period. Vol 1, History of Theology.
    Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,
    1977.
    Bethune-Baker, J. F. An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine. London:
    Methuen & Company, 1903.
    Blomberg, Craig L. “Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
    Bible and Why,” Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological
    Studies, ed, Richard S. Hess. [Online]. Available: http://www.denverseminary.edu/
    dj/articles2006/0200/0206.php [5 June 2006].
    Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans. Vol. 6, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove,
    Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
    Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (i-xii), 2d ed. Garden City, New York:
    Doubleday & Company, 1982.
    Buswell, J. Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
    Publishing House, 1962.
    Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
    Comfort, Philip. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography
    & Textual Criticism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005.
    58
    , and David P. Barrett, ed. The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament
    Manuscripts. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.
    Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert, ed. A History of Christian Doctrine. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
    Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.
    Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. San
    Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.
    , and Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
    Research. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
    Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
    Frary, Stephen W. “Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence in
    Support of a Variant in 1 Tim 3:16a.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (Mayo-Noviembre
    2003: 3-18.
    Gilson, Etienne. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge. Translation Mark A. Wauck.
    San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.
    González, Justo L. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1, The Story of
    Christianity. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984.
    Goodacre, Mark, and Nicholas Perrin, ed. Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Downers
    Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
    Greenlee, J. Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B.
    Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
    Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
    Publishers, 2003.
    Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 2d ed. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1978.
    Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers,
    1953.
    Liddell, Henry Georg, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: At The Clarendon
    Press, 1968.
    59
    Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
    Restoration, 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
    . A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttggart: Deutsche
    Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.
    Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
    Company, 1971.
    Murray, John. Chapters 9 to 16. Vol. 2, The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
    Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
    Publishing Company, 1977.
    Payne, Philip B., and Paul Canart, “‘Umlauts’ Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do
    They Mark the Location of Textual Variants?” Edmonds, Washington, and Vatican:
    Payne Loving Trust, 2006
    Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Vol. 1, The Christian
    Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: The University of
    Chicago Press, 1971.
    Robinson, Maurice A. “The Integrity of the Early New Testament Text: A Collation-Based
    Comparison Utilizing the Papyri of the Second and Third Centuries.” Valley Forge,
    Pennsylvania: Evangelical Theological Society: 57 Annual Meeting, 2005.th
    . “New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority.” TC: A Journal
    of Biblical Textual Criticism, 2001), http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson
    2001.html
    . “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Text-Type: A Response to Selected
    Criticisms of the Byzantine-Priority Theory.” Faith & Mission 11(1993): 46-74.
    Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism. San Francisco:
    HarperSanFrancisco, 1977.
    Seeberg, Reinhold. Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Translated by Charles E. Hay. Grand
    Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.
    Smith, R. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1990.
    Swanson, Reuben, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Acts. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
    Academic Press, 1998.
    60
    . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 1 Corinthians (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale
    House Publishers, 2003.
    . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Galatians. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House
    Publishers, 1999.
    . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Luke. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
    Press, 1995.
    . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Mark. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
    Press, 1995.
    . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Matthew. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
    Academic Press, 1995.
    __ . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Romans. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House
    Publishers, 2001.
    Syriac Bible. Damacus, Syria: United Bible Societies, 1979.
    Wallace, Daniel B. “A Review of Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
    Changed the Bible and Why,” Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
    [Online]. Available: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 [5 June 2006].
    Willis, John R. From Apollinaris to Erasmus. Vol. 2, A History of Christian Thought.
    Smithtown, New York: Exposition Press, 1984.