Is the New Testament corrupted? Refuting Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus

Summary of Ehrman’s argument in “Misquoting Jesus” book: 

1. 1. We don’t have the original text of the New Testament. What we have are copies made much later than the originals, so we cannot know what the original text actually said; 
2. 2. There are too many textual variations, especially among the oldest manuscripts, which means that the text was copied recklessly; 
3. 3. “orthodox” scribes have altered the text of the New Testament, even changing its basic message in significant ways.

 Refutations: Summarized from Wallace, Daniel B. 2006. “The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:327–49.:

About “We don’t have original text of the New Testament. What we have are copies made much later than the originals, so we cannot know what the original text actually said“

How does Ehrman know what early copies look like? We have 10-15 extant copies within a century of NT completion. How does he know none of these are early copies, or even the originals? Even carbon dating cannot distinguish them because 1 century falls within its standard deviation, and there’s also the question if the papyrus’ date is the date of manuscript writing.   But let’s assume Ehrman is right that no early copies exist. Because of that, Ehrman argues that NT transmission is like a long chain of “telephone game” such that the original message gets distorted. Let’s refute this:

1. a. The NT message is passed on in writing, not oral. So, the message does not get lost like in the telephone game.
2. b. There were multiple lines or streams of transmissions instead of just one. This helps to check & balance the wording of the original text. We can compare multiple streams of manuscripts to recover the wording of the original text, instead of reading the last manuscript in 1 line only.  Example: We are confident in the Gospels’ text because P75 and Codex Vaticanus have an exceptionally strong agreement although they are from different lines of transmission.
3. c. Textual Critics do not rely on the last manuscript in each line, but also check several texts that are closer to the original source.
4. d. Early writers / church fathers commented on the text as it was going through its transmissional history. When there are chronological gaps among the manuscripts, these writers often fill in those gaps by telling us what the text said in that place in their day.
5. e. The rule of telephone game is that once someone tells the story, they may not interfere further with the transmission. But this game rule does not exist in NT transmission. The original NT books might have been consulted to compare the written copies. Tertullian, a church father in the early 3rd century, challenged heretics about their doubts over what the original text said (Prescription Against Heretics, Ch 36):
   “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, … , run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still preeminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally”
   It implies that some original manuscripts were still present, and were still read in churches, in the early 3rd century.
6. f. The sheer number of manuscripts. There are about 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts besides Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Arabic, and many others. Latin itself numbers more than 10,000. NT story is told by about 1,000 times as many manuscripts as the average classical writings. So, whatever doubts we cast on the text of the New Testament must be cast a thousandfold on virtually any other ancient book. Can we do that?

1. The dates of these manuscripts. We have 10-15 manuscripts within 100 years of the completion of the New Testament, and more than 48 within 2 centuries. Of manuscripts produced before AD 400, 99 still exist—including the oldest complete New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus. The gap between the originals and the early manuscripts is relatively slim. Meanwhile, the earliest copies of the average classical Greek or Latin author come from more than 500 years after the date of composition.

About “There are thousands of changes in NT texts, such that we cannot recover the original text anymore“

Refutations:

1. a. Quantity of variants. 
   There are many textual variations because there is a large number of manuscripts, not because scribes intentionally altered them. Ancient manuscripts were copied by hand, not by Xerox machines. As even Ehrman admits:
   “Far and away, the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p55). 
   And the fact is that the vast majority of these typos are easy to detect and screen out.   
2. b. Quality of variants. 
   The variants can be broken down into the following categories:  
   Spelling differences/typos. This is the most common variant. It is easy to spot, and has no bearing on the meaning of the text (jsut liek the tyops we see nwodays)  
   Example: 1 Thess 2:7 Paul and Silas said to Christians in Thessalonica “we were gentle (neipioi) among you”. One manuscript reads “we were horses (hippoi) among you”. This sentence doesn’t make sense and can be dismissed as a typo.
   Use of synonyms that do not affect translation. This is the second most common variant. It does not change the way the text is understood and translated. 
   Example: “Jesus loves you.” In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least 16 different ways. And once we consider different verbs for “love” in Greek, the presence or absence of little particles that often go untranslated, and spelling differences, the possibilities run into the hundreds! Yet all of them would be translated simply as “Jesus loves you.” There may be a slight difference in emphasis, but the basic meaning remains the same.
   Meaningful but not viable differences. This variant has a meaningful change, but can be detected by investigating the likelihood of it retaining the wording of original text. 
   Example: In 1 Thess 2:9, one medieval manuscript reads “the gospel of Christ” instead of “the gospel of God” like all other manuscripts. It is a meaningful variant but not viable because there is little chance that one medieval scribe retained the wording of original text while all other scribes for centuries before him missed it.
   Meaningful and viable differences. The least common variant (less than 1%). The variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. The change may not be significant, but if it impacts our understanding of the text, then it is meaningful. 
   Example: Romans 5:1. Did Paul say “we have peace (echomen)”, or “Let us have peace (echoimen)”? The difference is only 1 letter, but it changes how we understand the text. Did Paul teach that Christians have peace, or did Paul suggest us to have peace with each other? Both interpretations agree with Christianity’s teaching, so Textual Critics need to work harder to find out which sentence did Paul really say.
3. c. Discernment of original text.
   Textual Critics use a methodology called “Reasoned Eclecticism” to discern what the original text says, by considering external evidence (manuscripts, versions, patristic testimonies) and internal evidence (scribal habits, context, known practices of the author). Ehrman himself embraces this methodology, and he actually admits that Textual Critics have no difficulties in discerning the original text:
   
   “In fact, most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p55)
   “In a remarkable number of instances—most of them, actually—scholars by and large agree,” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p94)
   “It is important to see what kinds of changes, both accidental and intentional, scribes were susceptible of making, because then it is easier to spot the changes and we can eliminate some of the guesswork involved in determining which form of the text represents an alteration and which represents its earliest form” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p99).
   “of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for any-thing other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p207). 
   “Modern scholars have come to recognize that the scribes in Alexandria . . . were particularly scrupulous, even in these early centuries, and that there, in Alexandria, a very pure form of the text of the early Christian writings was preserved, decade after decade, by dedicated and relatively skilled Christian scribes” (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p72). 
   “The scribes—whether non-professional scribes in the early centuries or professional scribes of the Middle Ages—were intent on ‘conserving’ the textual tradition they were passing on. Their ultimate concern was not to modify the tradition, but to preserve it for themselves and for those who would follow them. Most scribes, no doubt, tried to do a faithful job in making sure that the text they reproduced was the same text they inherited. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p177)

In summary, there is only less than 1% of textual variations that are both meaningful and viable. Do they alter core Christian beliefs? Do they put into doubt Christ’s divinity or the Trinity? No.

About “the essence of NT message has been changed by orthodox scribes“

Ehrman:

1. In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man [Mark 1:41]? Was he completely distraught in the face of death [Heb. 2:8–9]? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed [Mark 16:9–20]? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning [John 7:53–8:11]? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament [1 John 5:7–8]? Is Jesus actually called the “unique God” there [John 1:18]? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come [Matt. 24:36]? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p208)
    

Historically, these “textual problems” had never been problems at all for about 18 centuries. Only recently do modern secular scholars criticize the Bible and raise these verses as problematic. In short, these “problematic” verses are not actually problematic at all when we examine them using Textual Criticism methodology. And even if we assume Ehrman is right, that these verses are textually problematic, they do not affect the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Why? Because Christianity’s doctrines do not rely on singular verses/passages, but from the entirety of the Bible.  

Conclusion: The core doctrinal statements of the New Testament are not in jeopardy because of any textual variations. This has been the view of the majority of textual critics, including Dr. Bruce Metzger whom Ehrman admires and dedicates his “Misquoting Jesus” to. Jesus may be summarized in the New Testament, but He certainly is not misquoted.