As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
The Trust Worthiness of the New Testament. Erhman vs Wallace.
I want to say from the beginning I absolutely love Daniel B Wallace! The man is amazing! In fact he gave us (Muslims) a very counter argument to use against the deity of Christ Jesus!
By the way I do not want to misrepresent Daniel Wallace or say that he does not believe in the deity of Christ. I simply want to say that he showed that a very common argument advanced by Christian apologist is fallacious!
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-jesus-does-not-know-everything.html
It is very important that we have Christians like him who give Muslims very useful information. It is eye opening. If you read this blog post I would highly recommend to the Muslims and all the Christian truth seekers to read this one as well.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-about-that-p52-manuscript.html
It is very important that people realize that when the Christians talk about these thousands upon thousands of manuscripts that they have to actually put that statement into context.
For example would it sound more or less impressive if I mentioned that my thousands upon thousands of manuscripts (many of them) come 400-500 years after Christ Jesus lived? Or what if I mentioned that many of my thousands upon thousands of manuscripts came 700-900 years after Christ Jesus lived? So the above article deals with this p52 manuscript.
"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places." [1]
I am sure you have heard Christians making the claim that the Gospel of John was written several decades after Jesus and so were all the others. Such claims are unsubstantiated by any real textual evidence. As a matter of fact, today we know that the OLDEST text we have is dated more than 100 years after Jesus(125 to 150 CE to be more precise). It is not even a complete text. It is nothing more than a horribly worn out fragment labelled p52.
“The oldest fragment(P52), found in a mummy cartonage, contains a small portion of John 18 and is dated ca. 125.” [2]
References:
[1] Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus(2007). HarperSanFrancisco. p. 10
[2] Richard N. Soulen & R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. London: Westminste John Knox Press. p. 128.
This must be very delicious information for those Christians who deep inside hunger for fulfillment and 100% certainty.
So the Christian camp (Protestants) have been divided into two groups when it comes to the core issues of Christianity:
1) Presuppositionalists They go by faith. They dont' go by evidence. This particular view is attractive and more air tight. Why? Because more often than not it coincides with the view of Calvinism that God has already ordained whom will be saved and who won't. So there fore no amount of evidence or skepticism will make or break someone's faith. If God wants you to go to heaven you will believe no matter what the evidence because you have faith.
2) Evidentialists. They go by the evidence. Their position (That of William Lane Craig, Craig Evans, Mike Licona, Daniel Wallace etc) will be come less appealing to Christians as time goes by. Why? Because in a nut shell it is asking Christians to be 87% certain in their faith!
Can you imagine that! Being 87% confident or 'reasonably sure'. So what they will try and do is show that they have more evidence than the Muslim, or the Agnostic or the Atheist (on the resurrection, crucifiction, biblical manuscripts) etc..
Now again because I can easily be accused of bias (being a Muslim) let me quote to you what sincere Christians said who attended the debate and why I find it problematic. (By the way I intend to purchase the debate and listen to it. Allah-willing).
http://www.davidnormanblog.com/ehrman-vs-wilson/ (should be ehrman-vs-walalce, however the blogger has not corrected this ...yet)
Now this was one of 1500 at the debate and says about the position of Bart Erhman:
"Many of our copies (he preferred to use Mark’s Gospel as his primary example) came after the 4th Century. In fact, the vast majority of the manuscripts we have today originate from the 9th Century or more recent. He has little to no desire to credit the early copyists of the New Testament text with any sense of care or caution. He argues that the earliest copies we have (300 years after the original was penned) reveal that early copies were rushed and poorly edited. Only after the passing of time did the copyists (or scribes) give increased attention and caution to ensure the accuracy and precision of the text."
Daniel Wallace and his position:
"Wallace proceeded to argue that two extreme attitudes toward the New Testament’s reliability are beyond justification and offer little to no help in the conversation: absolute certainty and radical skepticism."
"On the other hand, Wallace admitted that while we don’t have any hard evidence, we have mountains of soft evidence. And while we cannot have absolute certainty (there simply isn’t any to be had), we have probability. And based upon the data, all of the probability leans toward the reliability of the New Testament text."
Now I can tell you if what that blogger said is true about Wallace position I am deeply troubled as a Muslim. As a Christian I don't walk away from such a debate with any confidence at all!
If Wallace says the choice is between 'absolute certainty' and 'radical skepticism' I don't see why and how he can call Bart Ehrman a "radical skeptic"! In fact if you don't have any 'hard evidence' and it's true that you only have 'copies of copies' and that indeed the vast majority of manuscripts we have today originate from the 9th century or more than this seems to me that Bart Erhman falls into the exact same camp as Daniel Wallace.
Now if not someone needs to explain why not! Erhamn want's 100% certainty. For Daniel Wallace one of the greatest Evangelical Christian scholars of the New Testament that is just "too extreme" to ask for!
Wow!
In fact I fount it amusing that the blogger would say,
"Ehrman is passionately unsure and skeptical in regards to the trustworthiness of the New Testament text. In fact, when asked what would be a credible enough source for him to believe, he responded with, “A first-generation copy within a week of the original penning of the New Testament book (or letter).”
"That’s not too much to ask for is it?"
Now why would it be too much to ask for? Are we not talking about the All-Powerful? The Sovereign? The Majestic? The Creator who has a clear record of his entire creation down to the minute detail? Is this not the God who gives life to the dead? The God who through Moses parted the seas?I guess maybe it is too much to ask for or Evangelical Christian standards of The All-Powerful God have certainly diminished!
So now let us also look at another Christian ( a girl who has been Orthodox, Catholic, etc) assessment of the debate shall we?
http://wellthoughtoutlife.blogspot.com/2011/10/bart-ehrman-vs-daniel-wallace-is-text.html
So there was very interesting reply by one of the people who in the comment section as follows:
Kacie:
While I agree in large part with your comments, I think it's important to mention Ehrman's point that it appears that the earlier the scribes' work was, the more prone to errors or variants, and that to me sort of tipped the debate more towards Ehrman than toward Wallace. I guess it depends on how one reads or understands the debated question: "Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament?"
I think Wallace would argue, and Ehrman would agree, that we have a lot of evidence to support the belief (or conclusion?) that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct from the manuscripts, Church Fathers, etc., is almost certainly very close to, if not identical with, what the various authors originally wrote.
The point I think Ehrman was making was that combining
a) the facts or evidence that the earlier scribes were the worst copyists, with
b) the long (time-wise) gap between the oldest largely extant mss. and the time the originals were written,
makes it unknowable what may have been added or omitted. (And because of things like the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending of Mark, we know things were added.) Hence, we can't say (and hence "trust") that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct is what the authors originally wrote.
The other point Ehrman made was that NT textual critics no longer talk about restoring/recovering "the original text," and haven't used that terminology for 20(?) years. Rather, they talk about restoring the text as it was in the 3rd(?) century. While that text is or would be or would become our New Testament text, one shouldn't assume that such a reconstruction is identical in wording or content or length to what the original authors originally wrote.
If I recall correctly, the answer to one of the Q&As indicated that the reliability of what we have in the Church Fathers (which are some important witnesses to the text in the 2nd and 3rd century) is difficult to determine. I suspect if much of what we have of those Fathers is in Latin that was translated from Greek, there will always be a problem knowing what wording a Church Father actually had in front of him.
Also, I think Wallace mentioned when discussing the Synoptic Problem - again during the Q&A time, I think - that he was thinking that perhaps Matthew and Luke had two different versions of Mark. (Both Wallace and Ehrman affirmed Q, I believe.) I'd have to hear the tape to be sure. That should raise some questions in persons' minds about what, then, is "The New Testament Text," at least as far as Kατα Mαρκον is concerned.
Thanks for a great blog write-up!
While I agree in large part with your comments, I think it's important to mention Ehrman's point that it appears that the earlier the scribes' work was, the more prone to errors or variants, and that to me sort of tipped the debate more towards Ehrman than toward Wallace. I guess it depends on how one reads or understands the debated question: "Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament?"
I think Wallace would argue, and Ehrman would agree, that we have a lot of evidence to support the belief (or conclusion?) that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct from the manuscripts, Church Fathers, etc., is almost certainly very close to, if not identical with, what the various authors originally wrote.
The point I think Ehrman was making was that combining
a) the facts or evidence that the earlier scribes were the worst copyists, with
b) the long (time-wise) gap between the oldest largely extant mss. and the time the originals were written,
makes it unknowable what may have been added or omitted. (And because of things like the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending of Mark, we know things were added.) Hence, we can't say (and hence "trust") that the New Testament text we have or are able to reconstruct is what the authors originally wrote.
The other point Ehrman made was that NT textual critics no longer talk about restoring/recovering "the original text," and haven't used that terminology for 20(?) years. Rather, they talk about restoring the text as it was in the 3rd(?) century. While that text is or would be or would become our New Testament text, one shouldn't assume that such a reconstruction is identical in wording or content or length to what the original authors originally wrote.
If I recall correctly, the answer to one of the Q&As indicated that the reliability of what we have in the Church Fathers (which are some important witnesses to the text in the 2nd and 3rd century) is difficult to determine. I suspect if much of what we have of those Fathers is in Latin that was translated from Greek, there will always be a problem knowing what wording a Church Father actually had in front of him.
Also, I think Wallace mentioned when discussing the Synoptic Problem - again during the Q&A time, I think - that he was thinking that perhaps Matthew and Luke had two different versions of Mark. (Both Wallace and Ehrman affirmed Q, I believe.) I'd have to hear the tape to be sure. That should raise some questions in persons' minds about what, then, is "The New Testament Text," at least as far as Kατα Mαρκον is concerned.
Thanks for a great blog write-up!
So now we know that we have evidence that people did add text to the New Testament. Text that was considered cannon up until very recently. It has only been in the last 50-70 years that the Christian tradition has cast aspersions upon Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 etc...
So there is the smoking gun.
Also if Daniel Wallace does agree with Bart Ehrman about Q (sources) this is indeed a very tantalizing tid bit to Muslims like myself and the the esteemed Shabir Ally (May Allah continue to benefit us by him).
In fact just look at the way Daniel Wallace speaks about the Bible itself. Just read the following:
"(2) Mark 10:18/Matt 19:17/Luke 18:19—“Good teacher . . . Why do you call me good?” (in Mark and Luke) vs. “Teacher . . . Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matthew). The text, as Mark has it, might imply that Jesus denies his own deity. It is apparent that Luke did not read it that way, but Matthew probably did. Indeed, in the Holtzmann/Streeter view, Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently of one another. Thus what might offend one would not necessarily offend the other."
"It is apparent that Luke did not read it that way, but Matthew probably did." We as Muslims are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is behind this?
More from Daniel Wallace read on....
2. Was “Q” a Written Source?
Scholars have presented four primary arguments that Q was a single, written document.
a. The Exactness of Wording
Many common pericopae between Matthew and Luke have identical or near identical wording, such as is common to triple tradition material. If the exactness of wording in the triple tradition argues that Matthew and Luke used a written document—namely, Mark—as the source, it would seem that double tradition exactness would argue for a written document shared by Matthew and Luke—namely, Q. However, two points militate against this to some degree: (1) There are not nearly as many pericopae in Matthew-Luke as there are in Matthew-Mark-Luke (or Matthew-Mark or Mark-Luke). (2) Several of the pericopae shared by Matthew and Luke have quite dissimilar wording. Thus, Q does not altogether parallel Mark either in quantity (number of pericopae) or quality (identical wording). The evidence, on the whole, argues that Q was both a written document and oral traditions.
Again people when I see people like, Daniel Wallace, Mike Licona and Craig Evans make some of the claims they do I say, 'Praise be to God that I am a Muslim!'. What a great day to be a Muslim! As I said in a previous post. Christianity is imploding upon itself. All the best arguments against the foundations of Christianity are coming from the Christians themselves!
I really hope that those sincere Christians who thirst for the divine and long to have a relationship with their Creator will be guided to Islam. Those who want to worship the one and only God and not a composite deity composed of parts. Those Christians who are not happy with 2nd best but want 1st place in the kingdom of heaven. Those Christians whom are doing soul searching. Those who do not want mere 'probability' or"87% certainty" but 100% truth. I pray that their eyes and hearts will be opened and they will be guided to Islam! Amen!
"Have they not traveled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to feel and ears which to hear? For indeed IT IS NOT THE EYES THAT GROW BLIND-BUT IT IS TH HEARTS, WHICH ARE IN THE BOSOMS, THAT GROW BLIND" (Holy Qur'an 22:46)
0 comments:
Post a Comment