UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME

I let one of the atheists talk me into promising to read a book, if he mailed it to me. First I did a quick review, regretted agreeing to read it, and went back to annotate it in some detail in order to keep my promise. I had understood the book was going to be about the ancient languages of the Bible and some of the textual issues involved in the transmission of the Bible forward in time. It took about ten minutes to realize that it is only a useless piece of propaganda designed to trap the poorly informed.

I had intended to organize these notes better but decided to leave them pretty much as I scribbled them down as I read. (I did my reading while sitting in the court house waiting to be called for jury duty.) I cleaned them up some as I typed them in, and added a couple of notes from a little research I did later. In the end they are pretty raw. The book is not worth any more of my time. The only way I can imagine myself opening this book again is if someone has a gun pointed at me demanding that I do so.

Page numbers refer to the book's page numbers.

Page 1

Over 30 years. Wow! Why spend that much time on something you do not believe? Because, Ehrman claims, he is incapable of controlling what engages his attention. Why? Is he under a spell?

Pages 1-15

If Ehrman was to meet himself as a teenager what could he offer that teenager to make him turn from his useless life of drinking and mindless socializing? Bruce offered him something that worked. What has Ehrman got to offer someone in a similar situation? Well, they could read Misquoting Jesus. That will straighten them right out. Yes, sir-ee.

Page 7, top paragraph - Yes, people who do not know Greek or Hebrew can not grasp every nuance of many passages of scripture. That's why God raises up scholars to help them. Ehrman could have been such a man but the tragic truth seems to be that instead he writes a popular book designed to shock and create a void of doubt without offering any useful truth while at the same time fattening his bank account.

He claims that English translations have "nothing to do with the original words." This is simply a lie. What emotion is he trying to evoke in his reader by such an outrageous claim? Suddenly it has become impossible for a person who knows two languages to convey the same idea in both? Nonsense!

The science of textual criticism "supposedly" help us re-construct the original words. This "supposed" science is what Ehrman basis most of his arguments on.

Pages 9 - 10

If the copyists were changing things at will as Ehrman later claims why didn't they fix all these little discrepancies while they were at it? These differences, so troubling to him, are part of the proof we can be sure we have reasonably accurate representations of the originals. These variations demonstrate that the texts have been transmitted as faithfully as possible by the copyists. It they had the integrity to leave in what could have easily been repaired by the unscrupulous it shows the reliability of the transmission of the texts. Truly a miracle when you consider how ancient this book really is.

Page 10

"…the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals." That sort of depends on what you mean by "access." I don't have direct access to the Mona Lisa but I recognize the picture when I see it. Most people, including Christians, were illiterate in their own languages, let alone Greek and Hebrew. What Christians did, and do have, is access to men who are literate, read Greek and Hebrew, and understand the issues of translation and transmission. They also had access to copies of the originals to read and understand God's message embedded in them. I believe Ehrman was designed to be such a man. It is sad that he has fallen into Satan's trap.

"Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." Another outrageous piece of propaganda! Technically it is true but it is an artifact of another truth. The reason there are so many differences is because there are dozens of manuscripts, hundreds of books, and thousands of bits and pieces of the New Testament that survive pre-printing press times. This is two or three orders of magnitude more than is available for any other ancient document of comparable age. It is this fact that makes reliable textual criticism possible.

Page 11 - middle paragraph - Because God did not perform the miracle Ehrman wanted Him to perform does not prove God performed no other miracles. Apparently Ehrman believed that the Bible was a magic book of incantations which he could use to call up and command God at will. What he found instead was not to his liking so it must be wrong. But Ehrman is the one who is wrong. It is a miraculous book that God uses to instruct those who would serve Him and expose those that will not. Ehrman tries to shine a light on the Bible but it is like shining a flashlight at the sun. It is Ehrman who is revealed by his Bible bashing book, not the Bible.

Pages 11 - 12 "a very human book" Very true. Otherwise it would be useless as a form of communication with humans. God does indeed give us the privilege of participating in His work. That does not mean He could not do it better Himself or that He had no hand in what we do.

"Using the term nonfiction somewhat loosely" applies as much to Ehrman as Lindsey. Two peas in a pod. Both of them exploit the Bible for profit.

Page 13

"1988 would be the end … straight from the lips of Jesus." Now I understand where Ehrman gets his title. He means that he, Ehrman, misquotes Jesus.

Page 14

Ehrman raises up the value and accuracy of the writings of Plutarch and others to the same level as the New Testament. Never mind that the evidence that Plutarch actually said what Ehrman thinks he said is miniscule compared with the New Testament. Never mind that fifty generations of people labored to preserve the New Testament while these other writings survived more or less by accident. Never mind that fifty generations of the ancestors of our culture were influenced by the Bible but for the most part never heard of these others. Even if I did not believe the New Testament was God's word it would still hold more interest and value for me than the obscure writings to which Ehrman refers.

Page 15

I never learned why Ehrman is interested in the Bible.

Page 20

Again Ehrman states truths in a way designed to create a false impression. Yes, the canon accepted by most Jews was established late in the first century. However, it was a matter that had been under discussion for centuries before and is still discussed. There are people in Israel today who only accept the Torah as God's word. Some of these worship at the mount where God's tent was first pitched when God's people came from Egypt.

Page 24 - Early Gospels

Ehrman tries to create the impression that the other gospels he mentions are from the 1^st Century. It is doubtful they were from before the 4^th century.

Page 25-26 - Church Orders

Some footnotes in this questionable section would have been nice.

Page 26

"… eventually converted intellectuals…" drips contempt and is a blatant lie. Paul was an intellectual. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea were no dummies. Many others would have had to be literate as well or it would have been pointless for Paul to write them letters.

Page 28 - Anti-heretical Tractates

Note 8 - In my reading of Robinson's book I found no ideas that have not been repeated in some form over and over again from day one. To me, that suggests these ideas could have originated by misreading, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting the scriptures as we have them today. There is no reason to suspect any one hid anything on purpose or changed the scriptures as we have them to keep these ideas from being promoted.

Pages 30-31

Ehrman characterizes Jesus' statement about divorce in Matt 5:31-32 as "countermanding" God's law saying, "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." Again, Ehrman misquotes Jesus. Jesus never said divorce was not an option. He "countermanded" nothing. I can not make up my mind whether Ehrman is dishonest or just stupid. Perhaps both.

Page 31

Here Ehrman makes an excellent point that the writer of I Timothy 5:18 believed Jesus' words to be equal in authority to those of the Torah. But notice the propaganda sandwich in which he serves this truth. He claims that scholars believe I Timothy to be written by a "later follower" instead of Paul. He then uses this as evidence to suggest that the idea of Jesus' words being on a par with the Old Testament writings is a later development in Christianity. But, if he had bothered to footnote the scholars claiming Paul is not the author I believe you would find, as I have numerous times, that the reason these "scholars" believe I Timothy to be written by a "later follower" is because the concept of Jesus' authority was a "later development." It is a combination of begging the question, circular reasoning and group think.

This guy has zero credibility left with me. If I had not given my word I would not finish reading this nonsense, this same old tired nonsense. Nonsense written and read by people scurrying around trying to avoid accountability before their Maker.

Page 32 - The Role of Christian Liturgy in the Formation of the Canon

Ehrman suggests that the reading of the New Testament in worship alongside of the Old Testament gave it authority by association and habit. Maybe. It is also possible that they read them in the worship service because they already regarded it as God's word.

Page 33-34 - Role of Marcion

Some of Marcion's ideas have their proponents today, although most of them are unaware of the connection. Hyper-dispensationalists view only Paul's writings as authoritative. There really are some odd notes in this section screaming for footnotes.

Page 34-35 - The "Orthodox" Canon after Marcion

Just like Christians of every age the ones faced with the crackpot Marcion never dreamed it was going to be an issue. They did not bother to establish in writing what they already believed until it came under attack because it was inconceivable to them that it was not obvious to everyone. Marcion has his parallel in Westcott and Hort. Just as the response to Marcion's nonsense established the canon, Westcott & Hort's nonsense will eventually result in a much better understanding of the original Greek text. Without their malicious attack, the work on the Greek text that has gone on the last 120 years would not have been nearly so comprehensive or energetic. God raises up crackpots like Marcion, Westcott & Hort for a reason, to get His people off their rear ends and working.

Page 35 - Here we have an example of the "after this therefore because of this" logical fallacy. Ehrman asserts that the ridiculous reasoning he quotes from Irenaeus caused the acceptance of the four gospels. I have not checked it by I strongly suspect Irenaeus had other arguments and in this one he was just waxing poetic. Either way, Ehrman has not shown an causal connection. Irenaeus scribbles a few notes and all of Christendom just automatically supports him? Is Ehrman really incapable of expressing himself logically or does he write such nonsense because he is so contemptuous of his reader that he believes his logical lapses will go undiscovered. I am growing to believe that he is simply trying to sell more books to the gullible.

He asserts in the last paragraph that Christians wanted an established canon so they would (1) know what to read in worship services and (2) what books were reliable. However, my understanding of the correspondence from the period regarding the issue of the canon would suggest something quite different. They were establishing the canon based on what books were already being widely read in worship services and which books were already widely believed to be reliable. Their concern was for documenting what they already believed in order to silence crackpots like Marcion.

Page 36

Yes, Athanasius. Yes, 367 A.D. Yes, first time for all 27 books as we have them now. But we have another truth served in a propaganda sandwich by Ehrman. Most of these 27 books had been established early in the process. The decades of haggling was mostly about Hebrews, II Peter, Jude and a book that did not make it into the canon called, the Shepherd of Hermas. Ehrman presents the information as if all 27 books had been in doubt for the entire period.

Page 36-37

Ehrman touts literacy. Literacy is good but if I had to choose between the ability to think logically and being able to read I'd have to choose the former. Ehrman apparently chose the latter. He asserts that it was only when the economic benefits of literacy were realized that it began to be widely promoted. Has this guy ever actually read a history book? The initial wide spread push for literacy came from the Reformation. Christians wanted people to be able to read God's word for themselves.

Page 39

Acts 4:13 does not say that Peter & John were illiterate. It only says that those questioning them had the understanding that they were uneducated and untrained. That does not mean their understanding was correct.

Page 40

Ehrman quotes I Corinthians 1:26 (calling it 1:27, oops copyist error, do you suppose it was intentional?) He makes an unsupported and unsupportable leap from "not wise" to "not educated." Greek has the vocabulary to make this distinction. Why wouldn't Paul use the word he meant? Oh, I know! Ehrman wants him to mean something else. Ehrman has been studying the New Testament for 30 years and yet he is still so desperate for quotes to make his point he makes stuff up.

Aargh! I can't blame Reg. I practically insisted he send it.

Ehrman makes the point several times that most Christians were from the lower classes and uneducated. He wants to plant a seed of doubt in our minds that they were capable of faithfully keeping the scriptures intact. He is right to some extent. Most people, and hence, most Christians were from the lower classes and uneducated. Does Ehrman have one shred of evidence that Christians were in any different proportions with regard to this demographic than the population as a whole? Nope.

One chapter down and six to go. I wonder if Reg would believe me if I said the dog ate the book. I do not have a dog but if I poured enough bacon grease on it and borrowed a neighbor's dog … big sigh.

Pages 45-47

They used to copy books before they had printing presses. And guess what, they made mistakes! Oh, my.

Pages 48-50 The Shepherd of Hermes

Here we have Ehrman analyzing a vision as if it really happened even though the author himself makes no such claim. If he had a shred of credibility remaining with me this would have surprised me. "Real-life glimpse" from a vision? If only he had the same faith in the New Testament. If only…big sigh.

Page 50

Ehrman claims that since the writer of the Shepherd of Hermes was literate he must be comparatively well educated. Unfortunately Ehrman then demonstrates that it is possible to be literate while being poorly educated. He can not seem to create a chain of reasoning without dropping links. Consider the five line sentence at the end of the middle paragraph on page 50. Only rich people were educated except for the ones that were educated who were not rich. Therefore early Christian scribes were wealthy and educated. What?!?

Page 50-51

Ehrman's proof that early Christian scribes were unpaid volunteers instead of professionals is a quote from another vision. Who would not be convinced by that? They probably were volunteers but I am guessing that by my experience with God's people today not from any actual ancient evidence.

Page 51

"… not unreasonable to conclude that the person who provided the home also provided the leadership of the church." This is pure conjecture. The most I would be willing to say is that wealthy people probably participated in the leadership of the early church. Now adding a conjecture based on a vision to a conjecture based on probabilities Ehrman concludes that the copying was done by the leaders of the church. This may have been true sometimes but we have no way of knowing how frequently it was true nor which specific segments of scripture may have been involved.

Page 52

Why go through this monstrosity of non-logic based on non-evidence? Because without it Ehrman has no basis on which to attack Origen. Because without it Ehrman can not claim that the problems Origen refers to are among accepted Christian texts instead of those of the heretics. Ehrman contradicts Origen's testimony based on his own foolish conjectures. Ehrman accuses Origen of being a liar based on some stuff he made up and a whole series of non sequiturs. People like Marcion and their spurious texts were quite properly ignored and their versions fell into disuse. Ehrman's own evidence confirms this fact though his reasoning denies it.

Page 53

Again we see that people at the time believed intentionally changing the text to be a disreputable abomination. In spite of this, Ehrman would have us believe that they all participated in this activity that they considered disreputable. Why? Because they mentioned it.

Page 54

Because people put notices in their writings warning copyists to copy them carefully Ehrman concludes that they did not copy them carefully. Huh? It seems to me that it means that men of integrity did not engage in the practice of changing things willy nilly. But for Ehrman, who feels betrayed because God does not run the universe in the way Ehrman would like, everyone associated with the Bible project has no integrity and/or skill as a copyist. It would be so much better for us all if Ehrman would beat on pillows to vent his anger rather than writing this trash. Big sigh.

Page 55

Ehrman claims, "… it is important to recall that most of the copyists in the early centuries were not trained to do this kind of work but were simply the literate members of their congregations who were more or less able and willing." Although this may be correct it has not even come close to being an established fact. Even if it is true, a motivated amateur can turn out some really fine work. However, it is an established fact that there are many differences in the text. Most of these can be easily dealt with and, for the most part, the original text easily ascertained.

Page 56

Ehrman spins more propaganda. He uses the example of "bears" and "manifests" to plant the seed in our minds that such things were common place. No evidence of that.

Page 57-58

Again Ehrmans tries to paint the picture that textual differences are some kind of enormous problem. This is a simple bold faced lie. Yes, there are some problems. A few of them are significant.

Pages 58-60

Galatians

It seems likely to me that Paul dictated his letter to the Galatians to several people at the same time. It also seems likely that some of the differences we now have, existed from that moment forward. So what? He talks about textual criticism as if it were complicated. It is not complicated. It is tedious, repetitive, redundant, drudgery. It is more like long division than it is like calculus. It is more like sorting buttons than designing a dress.

Pages 60-62

Gospel of John

"John, no doubt, had sources for his account." Here Ehrman rejects, out of hand, without evidence, that John was simply writing what he remembered. Using Ehrman's reasoning we can conclude that the introduction of Misquoting Jesus was written by someone else because it is in a different style than the rest of the book and mentions words like, Kansas and Bruce, that do not appear elsewhere in the book. He freely mixes textual criticism with source criticism as if they were the same thing. How did he ever get a doctorate degree?

Page 62

Because Ehrman is confused it must be too hard. Whine, whine, whine. I must remember to not put myself in this predicament again.

Page 62-68

He talks about John 8 and Mark 16. I guess he'll talk about I John 5 later. Then we'll be done with all the significant problems and he can quit. I have a sinking feeling he won't quit though.

Page 63

Oh, no! He is going to go into the details of textual criticism. I wonder if he actually knows anything about it. So far he hasn't known what he is talking about. He finds textual criticism exciting. I bet he also likes to watch clothes spin in the little round dryer window. What have I gotten myself in to?

Page 63-65 The Woman Taken in Adultery

Yes, there is evidence it may not have been in the original gospel account, at least where it appears in our current version. However, it is not a settled matter at all. To suggest it is not even debatable is dishonest.

Page 65-68 The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

Well, at least Ehrman says "almost indisputable" this time. Verses 17 and 18 are a prophecy of Pentecost and Paul's encounter with a snake on the island during his voyage to Rome. They are not justification for tempting God by handling snakes. Ehrman says, "How ironic that when the women at the tomb are told not to be silent but to speak, they also ignore the order - and are silent." How stupid can you get? Clearly they were not silent or we would not have their accounts either here or in the other three gospels.

Pages 68-69 Conclusion

Ehrman claims, "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 the scribes." Again we have truth in a propaganda sandwich. Yes, there are many other problems. To get into thousands you have to get into slight spelling errors and other differences so minor that you do not even find them noted in the apparatus of a Greek text. The fact is these are the only two of this kind. All the others are of such a smaller size as to put these two in a class by themselves. The only other one any where close to the significance of these two is I John 5:7-8. It is small, but the doctrine contained there is so significant, and the evidence against its actually being in the Greek so great, that the size of the controversy is comparable. But none of that stops Ehrman on his campaign to shock and awe his readers into talking about the book in hopes of selling more copies. Ehrman is an unembarrassed prostitute.

Two down and five to go. Really big sigh.

Page 71

Ehrman attributes the greater number of differences to the untrained nature of early writers but he has not proven that they were untrained. Other explanations could be suggested that fit the facts as well. For instance, in the first three centuries Christianity frequently came under widespread persecution. That would have made conditions for making good copies very difficult.

Page 72

Ehrman asserts that "Modern scholars have come to recognize that the scribes in Alexandria … were particularly scrupulous, even in the early centuries, and that there, in Alexandria, a very pure form of the text of early Christian writings was preserved, decade after decade, by dedicated and relatively skilled Christian scribes." Notice the way he makes this statement as if it is a settled issue. A more honest way to put it would have been, "Many modern scholars have come to believe …" but I have totally given up on getting honesty from this guy.

Page 72-73

Again he promotes the lie that before 312 A.D. Christians were stupid.

Page 74

Conclusion to top paragraph is another of Ehrman's many non sequiturs.

Page 74-75 The Latin Vulgate

Three paragraphs in a row without a lie. Wow!

Page 76-77

Ehrman can read a history book after all!

Page 77

It seems strange that "scholars" have never been able to "answer with confidence" how scribes producing Complutensian Polyglot made their choices only 500 years ago, but Ehrman would have us believe he can answer with confidence similar questions about scribes from 1600-1900 years ago.

Page 79 - 1^st paragraph

"And this, as we will see, is the edition of the Greek New Testament that for all practical purposes was used by the translators of the King James Bible nearly a century later." He knows this is not true.

Page 81

I John 5:7-8! I just knew he would get around to it! Ehrman says Erasmus made a decision "possibly in an unguarded moment." It could not possibly be because Erasmus has been convinced that the passage really belonged there. Ehrman's uncanny ability to read the minds of dead people is truly amazing. Disappointed that the Bible turned out not to be magic, he turned to another kind of magic. I wonder if he also does Tarot card readings.

Page 82

I am not a proponent of the Textus Receptus but the middle paragraph of page 82 brings Ehrman's anti-supernatural bias into stark clarity.

Page 83

As I said, I am not a proponent of the Textus Receptus but calling it "inferior textual form" is begging the question. But this is only one of the many logical fallacies of which Ehrman is so fond.

Page 83-84 Mill's Apparatus

"Enormity" overstates the problem. Ehrman says there are many more than 30,000 differences. If they were all like the three examples he has offered so far it would indeed by an enormous problem. Using propaganda by exaggeration Ehrman's subtle guile forms a trap for the unwary.

Page 85 Controversy

Mill's "untimely death … did not prevent detractors from coming to the fore, however…" This seems to suggest that Ehrman does not think well of people who direct scathing attacks at dead people who can not defend themselves. This seems odd considering that is mostly what Ehrman does in his book.

Page 86

"Whitby may have intended his refutation to have its effect without anyone actually reading it; it is a turgid, dense, unappealing one hundred pages of close argumentation, which tries to make its point simply through accumulated mass of its refutation." Change "Whitby" to "Dennis McKinsey's website" and I agree.

Page 87

"Bentley, an expert in the textual traditions of the classics, goes on to point out that one would expect to find a multitude of textual variants whenever one uncovers a large number of manuscripts." Bentley goes on to explain why this is a good thing. Sounds good to me, anyway.

Page 88

Ehrman calls Mill's 30,000 differences "astonishing discoveries" right after quoting Bentley's point that they are to be expected. I'm not clear about Ehrman's position here. Are the differences to be expected or astonishing discoveries? I'm afraid I do not have Ehrman's ability to read minds. If he doesn't tell me his position I will never know what it is. Not that I care.

Page 88-90

Again Ehrman uses accurate statistics to paint a deceitful picture. (See last note under page 10 in the Introduction.)

Page 90-92 Accidental Changes

Wow! A whole section without a lie unless of course you count the lie by omission. Scribes because of the nature of their work memorized a lot of scriptures. Copying is dull, tedious work. Almost as dull and tedious as textual criticism. Sometimes they would accidentally include something by memory from another book when copying a parallel passage.

Page 94-98 Intentional Changes

Ehrman says, "In a remarkable number of instances - most of them, actually - scholars by and large agree" about the probable original text. What happened to that enormous problem he has been complaining about? "Remarkable" is coming awfully close to admitting the Bible is miraculous.

Mark quoting Exodus 23:20 and Malichi 3:1 and calling it Isaiah being glossed over has a possible explanation that makes it accidental but I do not recall what it is right now.

Matthew 24:36. The only way they could surmise this was intentional is by mind reading. I could have been a simple periblepsis.

Changing texts to keep heretics from using them as proof passages would be stupid in the extreme. The only way one could hope to make such a strategy work is if he believed he was in control of all the copies everywhere. Ehrman can produce no evidence there were scribes that had such a ridiculous notion.

Luke 5:38-39 could have been a simple periblepsis.

Matthew 1:16

Here we see Ehrman's dishonesty fully shown. I had never heard of anyone adding "virgin" to this verse before. So, when I got home from jury duty I looked it up. No scribe ever added "virgin" to this verse. It only appears in some ancient correspondence and commentary which can easily be explained by realizing that their authors probably quoted from memory, faulty memory. Or perhaps they did not intend it to be a quote at all but a summary of some kind. This alternate reading never made it into any known copy of the Bible, ever.

How did Ehrman come to know that Mark 16 and John 8 are from oral traditions? It is far from the established fact he would have us believe. How does Ehrman decide what comes from oral tradition and what comes from a divergent copy?

Page 98 Conclusion

Ehrman says he could go on as he has "nearly forever talking about specific places in which the texts have been changed, either accidentally or intentionally." It is true that if one wanted a very long, boring, recitation, he could talk about accidental changes for a long time. It is lie to say intentionally made changes could engage much time at all. He has failed to establish for sure that any changes were intentional. Even using his own criteria the number of intentional changes would not be many. Once again he is using a propaganda technique of making a few seem like many only in this case he doesn't even have a well established few to start with.

Three chapters down and four to go - big sigh. I feel like I am in school again with an lengthy unpleasant assignment in a class I do not like. At least, I didn't pay for it.

Page 101

Oh, let's keep the big numbers in the reader's mind even if they are meaningless. That is a necessity in order for this propaganda to work its destruction of the truth.

Page 103

I think Ehrman may be claiming that the science of textual criticism can not work. It is not entirely clear to me what he is claiming. But whether it can work or not would depend on what you expect the science to do. If you want a reasonable facsimile of the original it works quite well. If you want to be certain you have all the exact words as they appeared in the original, then no, it will not work. This is especially true when you consider that there may never have been an original. It is not unlikely that the authors dictated the "original" to several scribes at the same time, especially in the case of Paul's letters. That would make it virtually certain that their were copyist differences from the very beginning. It is also possible, though not as likely, that slightly different versions of the books were created intentionally, depending on the expected audience. The first verse of Ephesians which sometimes has the destination in it and sometimes does not may be an example of this. At any rate, it appears Ehrman is still on a quest to find the magical book whose non-existence so disappointed him when he was a young man.

How is it that Ehrman can so easily see Simon's "theological agenda" and miss his own?

Page 106

Here we discover that Ehrman is not the only one who is arrogant.

Page 110 - bottom

Now Ehrman tries his hand at prophesy. Well, time will tell.

Page 113-114

I'm having trouble seeing how a line bleeding through from one side of a page to the other could be construed as intentional.

Page 101-125

Most of chapter 4 is not new information to me. Although a good bit of Ehrman's praise is exaggerated and his criticism unmerited I can not dispute it is basically factual. It is presented, of course, in his normal propaganda style. Perhaps he learned this style from Westcott & Hort. "Neutral Text" Oh, yeah, very neutral. I am anticipating some very amusing non-sequiturs in the next chapter.

Page 128 bottom - top 129 - External Evidence

Counting manuscripts in a vacuum would indeed be illogical. However, this kind of work is not carried out in a vacuum. It is not enough to say that maybe there were more copies of one than the other to start with. You must make some attempt to answer the question why were there more copies of one made than the other. Could it have been that one was considered valid and the other invalid? Maybe the one that was not copied very much was known to be a bad copy but since it was so expensive they saved it anyway. The Masoretes did not make this mistake which has led to the existence of a much better text of the Old Testament than the New. If it was not a good copy they destroyed it.

Page 129 bottom

First Ehrman says we can not go by the majority and then he says we should go by the majority. I wonder if he actually has a position on this issue?

Page 130

Geographical range is an important consideration but I would not trust Ehrman to make useful distinctions in this arena or any other. Ehrman says, "When you know that a person is prone to lying, then you can never be sure that he or she is to be trusted…" I wonder if it occurred to him that a reader like me would construe this to mean he was talking about himself.

Page 131 Internal Evidences

I would agree with the first paragraph only I would change the word "especially" to "only."

If intentional harmonization occurred on the scale Bengal and Ehrman seem to think why didn't they correct the discrepancies which give Ehrman so much heartache?

Mark & the Angry Jesus

"Most English translations render the beginning of verse Mark 1:41 so as to emphasize Jesus' love for the poor outcast leper." [Indeed, when I got home from jury duty, I checked 19 English versions showing it as "compassion" before finding the TNIV which translates it "indignant." I also checked Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Westcott & Hort, and UBS (Aland & Metzger with others) and they all have compassion. In the apparatus of the UBS I found "angry." The evidence for "angry" is only D from the fifth century and a couple of other minor references. Aleph, A, B, and C and numerous other early documents have it "compassion."] Obviously the English translations render "compassion" because they believe that is what the Greek says and are not trying to emphasize anything. Again we have Ehrman engaging in a little mind reading. It is not possible for his bent little brain to consider that the translators knew about this obscure little difference and decided based on sound critical, linguistic and logical principles that "compassion" was the right choice. Since they disagree with Ehrman they must be incapable of overcoming their theological prejudice and doing any valid scholarly work. Unless they agree with Ehrman they are hopelessly entrapped in their own emotions and unable of carrying out reasonable thought processes. But it is Ehrman who began the book by saying he was incapable of directing the course of his own life.

Be that as it may be, even if Ehrman is correct, and "angry" is the correct reading, so what? Jesus could have been angry at the leprosy, or the way people excluded the man from society. Either of these reinforces his compassion. Jesus might also have been angry at the man for asking because He saw into the future and realized the man would ungratefully ignore Jesus injunction of silence so that Jesus would not longer be able to move around freely. This would strengthen the idea of Jesus' compassion even more since it would mean that He overcame His own anger with the power of His compassion.

Page 134

Ehrman says, "no doubt almost everyone." Now Ehrman's clairvoyance has moved from dead guys to the minds of huge portions of the population. Hey! Ehrman! What am I thinking right now? Ehrman claims that if a text makes sense it is probably wrong. That explains why he likes to not make sense. He thinks it makes him right.

Page 135

Ehrman's explanations assume that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. It seems Ehrman believes the Gordian Knot of the Synoptic problem has been solved. I guess it has to his satisfaction at least. Please excuse me if I believe otherwise. Conjectures based on the word not appearing in Matthew or Luke is not evidence of anything at all. The only other time Jesus is explicitly said to be angry is in Mark 3. Ehrman goes to great pains on page 138 to show that although that is the only other explicit reference Jesus exhibits anger several times in Mark. But the same could be said of Luke and Matthew. (See Luke 3:7, 11:42-53, 23:9 and Matthew 7:10, 8:26, 11:20-24, 12:27)

Page 135 - next to last paragraph

If Luke and Matthew were so set on describing a compassionate Jesus and if they were working from a copy of Mark why didn't they always include the word compassion when it appeared in Mark? Either they were not so determined to include it or they were not working form a copy of Mark. Either way, Ehrman's argument, such as it is, falls apart.

Page 136

Here we find that Ehrman has decided that Jesus can not feel compassion and anger at the same time. Why not? I feel both of those emotions towards Ehrman right now.

Page 137 Top of Page

I see that I am not alone in seeing other possibilities. The only argument Ehrman answers is one I did not propose above. But notice how one skilled in propaganda, such as Ehrman, handles such things:

1) Characterize all alternatives as "highly improbable."

2) List 3 alternatives under this heading making sure that the only one of the three that really is highly improbable is listed last.

3) Point out why the last alternative is improbable.

4) Pretend that you have answered all the objections instead of only the last one. Do not acknowledge the others are reasonable.

I accidentally left this stupid book on my seat while we were on break. When I realized what I had done I found myself hoping that when I got back someone would have stolen it. No takers. Just as well, I guess. Reg would not have believed it any more than the dog ate it idea I was contemplating earlier.

Page 137 Middle paragraph

Again we have Ehrman ascribing to those with whom he disagrees motivations devoid of integrity. Perhaps it has been so long since he had any integrity of his own that he no longer can even recognize it in others.

Mark is not the only gospel that introduces Jesus with a wild eyed prophet in the wilderness. Jesus is an authority figure in all the Gospels.

Page 138

Oh, yeah. I bet Peter's mother-in-law really resented being healthy enough to serve dinner to guests.

Mark 3 - Can anyone seriously contend that the other gospels do not show Jesus being angry at the Pharisees. See notes for page 135.

Page 139

I guess I missed the scripture quote that explained why Jesus was angry. Ehrman builds conjecture upon conjecture. "A different feel to the story." Yes, sir-ree, Bob. There is a great tool for exegesis - the feel of the story. Can't be more than one opinion about that, now, can there?

Luke & an Imperturbable Jesus

Angry and disturbed are two different things. Not everyone is like Ehrman who after discovering that the Bible is not magic became disturbed.

I do not concede the Alexandrian text to be the best. I did a paper on a passage in Luke 11 that shows why I believe the Alexandrian to be inferior. If I can find it I'll include it. I'm not alone is this regard. (It is interesting that this "superior" Alexandrian text disagrees with Ehrman's Mark 1:41 theory above.)

Page 140

What does he mean here by "as a rule?"

Deleted because scribes "wanted" them out or added because scribes "wanted" them in begs the question of whether it is intentional or not. Even if he had established that intentional changes were frequently made (which he has not) he has certainly not established it in this particular case. But he proceeds as if he has.

I am weary of pointing out the logical fallacies, lies, and propaganda in this poor excuse for a book. If you have not learned to spot them for yourself by now you are unteachable and will just have to remain the victim of Ehrman's mind traps. So far, I have only been pointing out the ones that really annoyed me. I think from now on I will only point them out if they are a new kind.

His arguments regarding Luke 22 do not convince me.

Page 144 to 148 - Hebrews and a Forsaken Jesus

I can't remember if I have explicitly pointed out any of the times Ehrman contradicts himself. In his arguments regarding Luke 22 above he has the scribes deliberately making something harder to understand. Here it is the other way around. Does he have a position on this issue?

His arguments regarding Hebrews do not convince me.

Page 148-149 - Conclusion

In all three cases sited by Ehrman, the correct rendering could have been either choice without having any impact on any doctrine of importance. Talk about an exercise in futility. Is one of Ehrman's other hobbies watching paint dry?

Less than seventy pages to go and I will be done with this odious task.

Pages 152-155

Ehrman claims that Christianity was more diverse in its beliefs in the early centuries then it is now. That is ridiculous. There are tens of thousands of denominations, hundreds of thousands of congregations, and hundreds of millions of Christians. Before Constantine the church probably did not exceed a few hundred thousand. Geographically it did not extend beyond the Near East, the Mediterranean region, and some of sub-Saharan Africa. Today it encompasses the globe. By 500 A.D. the Bible had only been translated into a few hundred languages. Today it is thousands. Ehrman is either ignorant or thinks his readers are ignorant. I suspect the latter. Jim Jones claimed to be a Christian. I doubt if Ehrman can find his equal in ancient Christianity.

No one group of Christians "won out" even when they were killing each other over doctrines. The debates never stopped. They still rage today.

The canon was formally agreed upon by a large majority of Christian congregations across the Roman Empire. Except for four or five books mentioned before, this agreement was by an almost unanimous voice based on the books already in use in churches everywhere. Outside the Roman Empire the same books were selected independently by many Christians apparently unaware that the controversy even existed. I have reviewed the relevant material and have made the same choice of books as they did.

On the other hand, if reading the Shepherd of Hermas, or any of the others, inspires you to seek a closer walk with God I have no objections.

Page 155-162 Anti adoptionistic Alterations of the Text

Nonsense. Ehrman points out many times that there are many differences in the text. But he fails to see the implication. There are so many, that it is almost a statistical certainty that some of them will appear to fall on two sides of a doctrine. That makes it impossible to discern between accidental and intentional differences without corroboration of some external evidence.

Page 162-170 Anti dodetic Alterations of the Text

More nonsense. Since Reg underlined the last four lines on page 169 I’ll address that issue. Between Luke 24:49 and Luke 24:50 several weeks passed. Do not put too much weight on the "and" that opens verse 50. In the Greek, it does not necessarily mean what you think it means in English. It was used as much to delineate as to join. You have to look at the context to tell which is meant.

Page 170-175 Antiseparationist Alterations of the Text

Even more nonsense.

Page 175 Chapter Conclusion

Comparing 1st Century material with 3rd and 4th Century material as if they should carry the same weight is stupid.

Page 177

Ehrman says, "Most scribes, no doubt, tried to do a faithful job in making sure that the text they reproduced was the same text they inherited." I agree with this whole heartily but notice the propagandist’s trick. He has spent most of the book trying to discredit these men. Close to the end he slips in a little comment like this so when those who know the truth expose his lies he can point to it and claim he never lied at all.

Page 178-186 Women and the Text of Scripture

Nonsense

Page 186-195 Jews and the Text of Scripture

Nonsense

Page 195-205 Pagans and the Text of Scripture

Nonsense. One example: On page 199 the quoted material suggests that the difficulties between the gospel accounts was being removed by the scribes. If this is so, why are the difficulties still there?

The gospels are not credible because they contain differences. The gospels are not credible because someone removed the differences. Such contradictory claims are foundational in all of Ehrman’s arguments. If he had spent more time reading Aristotle he would not spout such nonsense.

Pages 207-218

Page 207

At last, Ehrman explains his interest. The Bible is a mystery to be solved. Its too bad Ehrman is incapable of rational thought. If he could think he could have solved the mystery long ago.

Page 213

Ehrman says of Jesus on the cross, "He then uttered a loud cry and died." People who die of asphyxiation brought on by crucifixion are not able to cry out loudly right before they die. There is a mystery worth exploring! What really happened? What killed Jesus?

Thor Carden

The only reasonable response I got to this was that it was an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

My response: Yes, it is an attack on his character and motives. But it is not the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. My assertions concerning his character and motives are fully supported by the arguments in this document using the evidence of his own writing. Like most in the Atheist religion, he believes nothing of value, and spends his time trying to tear down the beliefs of others (Like a toddler so frustrated that he can not build anything out of blocks tearing down the works of those around him for amusement.) An ad hominem occurs only if the attack is made in lieu of an argument or as a premise of an argument. You may believe that it is not adequately supported but that would only make it invalid, not fallacious. So far as I know I have not used an argumentum ad hominem in my communication with this panel. Nor is an exchange of barbs illogical. It may not be useful, but unless it is claimed as part of an argument, it is just an exchange of assertions, not fallacious.

Reviews by others:
benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html
www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/review_of_bart_d_ehrmans_misqu.html
www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html
www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452

UNREFUTED | UNANSWERED | TRICKS | BIAS | EVIL | VERSUS | EHRMAN | HOME