Introduction
Christians place a spiritual act of faith on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. For skeptics, this act is “unscientific” when there are thousands of apparent contradictions and variances in the Bible and its correlated manuscripts. Science reveals the problematic phenomena, so Christians have culminated their theological arguments with the science of archaeology, history, philosophy, and textual criticism. Some have addressed the contradictions through harmonistic approaches and appeal to scientific data for support. Others clarify their theology further and defend inerrancy by distinguishing assertions from reports. A scientific observation at the abundant manuscript evidence shows the reliability, proximity, and transmission of the Bible to be above any other historical document in the world. However, others have been skeptical and discovered weaknesses with the evangelical approach of textual criticism concerning variant-consciousness, proximity method, scribal errors, and theological biases. These weaknesses will be discussed through historical comparisons, contextual observation at the manuscripts, “reasoned transmissionalism,” textual clusters, and the most orthodox readings. The limitations of theological arguments, science, and bias will also be discussed with Erickson’s theological and scientific arguments to conclude the case for biblical inerrancy and inspiration. This paper will argue that biblical inerrancy withstands the test of scientific skepticism concerning phenomena related to textual and doctrinal corruptions and the limitations of science and theological biases.
Problematic Phenomena and Inerrancy
When we look at the actual phenomena of biblical inerrancy, the texts have many
apparent issues and contradictions. There are different versions and wordings of parallel accounts given in the Gospels, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Chronologies and genealogies provide 4 different dates and number of years that do not match. Accounts of numbers throughout the Bible also do not seem to match up correctly. Doctrines and ethics seem to contradict each other in the texts, such as whether God or Satan tempted David (2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1) and whether works are included or excluded for justification (Romans 4:2-5, James 2:21-24). Most of these are answered through the harmonistic approaches of Edward J. Young, Louis Gaussen, Harold Lindsell, and Everett Harrison, who provide a wealth of answers that address textual discrepancies. [1] For the contradictory measurements of the molten sea in 2 Chronicles 4:2, Erickson uses Lindsell’s explanation that the circumference is for the inner rim and the diameter is from one outer edge to the other edge. [2] Erickson cites Harrison’s scientific reasoning that issues occur in texts due to the unavailability of current data, but answers eventually come as archaeological and philological research advances. [3] Contradictions should not be prejudged as error until there is enough data to show otherwise. The trend of the data, however, keeps supporting the biblical texts. [4] For one example, scholars have doubted the existence of Sargon a century ago until archaeological data revealed that an Assyrian ruler by that name really did exist. [5]
The second method is to distinguish assertions from reports. Ancient writers are not using technical language as we do in the modern age of science. Biblical authors only reported what they knew accordingly to their cultural setting, phenomenal points of views, and approximations. [6] If they reported to the best of their own knowledge, then this shows historical accuracy in the Bible rather than error. [7] Honest historians can properly understand ancient writers by looking at their cultural, phenomenal, and approximate point of views. They will not understand antique writings by making their language fit with our modern use, especially a modern scientific one! Furthermore, this modernist mistake is not even proper science since the right method should be to study the textual data from its cultural and historical past, not transplanting them to a modern point of view.
Erickson defines biblical inerrancy through what the Bible asserts. [8] Reports are merely taken in context of what the texts are trying to affirm. Whatever the Bible asserts or affirms is taken as truth statements, such as when Jesus commanded, “Love your enemies.” However, reports that are cultural, phenomenal, and approximate are treated differently within context. [9] When Moses approximately accounts 23,000 dead (Numbers 25:9) and Paul accounts 24,000 (1 Corinthians 10:8), it is an approximate report that rather asserts about the large number of Jews receiving serious punishment. When Joshua told the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12), it is a phenomenal report that rather asserts about God miraculously holding daylight. When Luke writes, “Glory in the highest,” and Mark writes, “Hosanna in the highest,” one is taken as a Gentile cultural report and the other as a Jewish cultural report. These cases demonstrate how reports are accurate according to historical science and how Erickson applies inerrancy to what is being asserted in context of reports.
The most significant problem with biblical inerrancy is the textual variants. Thousands of contradicting words exist in the manuscripts that make up the Bible. If the Bible is truly inerrant, then the codicological phenomena seems to show otherwise with thousands of different words in the biblical texts. [10] Another issue is that inaccurate transmission is potentially strong when there is a gap of 200 years from the original writings. [11] However, others who use the science of textual criticism find the data to support the accuracy of the Bible instead. Timothy Paul Jones refers to Tertullian at A.D. 200 quoting that the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome still possessed Paul’s original letters. [11] Daniel B. Wallace categorizes the variants as merely spelling differences, nonsense errors, and minor differences that do not affect translation, and those that do are unviable. [12] Jones puts the statistic at more than 99 percent for these unnoticeable variants. [13]
Wallace argues that less than one percent are viable errors, but this is easily resolved when realizing the viable errors do not affect major doctrines. [14] This means the variants are still unnoticeable. What is further revealing is that the so-called thousands of variants do not stress the seriousness of error, but the contrary rather. The reason why there are thousands of variants is due to the thousands of manuscript evidence available. If there was only little manuscript evidence, then the percentage would significantly drop. [15] This supports the accuracy of the Bible, not discrediting it. If that was not enough for scientific data, the remaining 1% viable error can be easily corrected from comparing the abundant manuscript evidence. [16]
Criticisms Against Evangelical Textual Criticism
Though textual criticism overwhelmingly supports the accuracy of the Bible, skeptics bring up valid criticisms against the scientific assumptions of evangelicals. First, Bart Ehrman criticizes the Alands, whose works are the standard for evangelical scholars, for adopting what appears to be more of (1) a reasoned eclecticism that is actually circular in reasoning towards the B-text, and (2) a proximity method that is supposedly closer to the originals when it should be textual consanguinity. [17] What the latter means is that the original wording is better determined by collating manuscripts into groups, finding variances or variant patterns within a group, and researching how the text was transmitted over the centuries through the variances and high percentage of commonality. [18] Such methods include the Quantitative Method and the Claremont Profile. [19] Eldon J. Epp argues that an original reading is better determined by a variant-conscious approach rather than the earliest reading. His reason is that scholars should cover the possibilities that the “original” can be preserved in later manuscripts, or internal considerations (like liturgical practices) can favor the “original” more than the earliest manuscript. [20] Petersen and Epp both view the Aland’s baseline text to be biased towards the B-text and to not provide the variances honestly. [21] Hence, Epp proposes a variant-conscious approach that would take the Aland’s baseline text with another baseline text below it that has the earliest readings and variances so that readers can determine the “original” reading more honestly. [22]
Secondly, reasoned eclecticism sometimes ignores the earliest readings. Epp agrees with Petersen that the B-text favored by the Alands is not always reliable for proximity, because second-century manuscripts and patristic witnesses have contradicted. For example, they argue that a variant of Matthew 19:17 is found thrice in second-century Justin and other early sources with “my father in the heavens.” However, this pre-180 manuscript tradition has been ignored and replaced by the papyri and B-text that the Alands favored. [23] He shows more of this inconsistency with evangelical scholars rejecting the Oxyrhynchus papyri that contain second century copies of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter. [24] Moreover, Maurice Robinson cites Westcott, Hort, and Scrivener to stress that the B-text dated at the fourth century suddenly trickled at that same time period while the Byzantine text exploded throughout different geographical locations. [25] He argued that the Byzantine text cannot be that widespread unless it already existed during the early times of the B-text and was prioritized as the more “original” reading. [26] The problem only escalates when Epp refers to Westcott, Hort, and other scholars who suggested the D-text had readings earlier than the B-text. [27]
A third faulty logic is that evangelicals who promote reasoned eclecticism assume that shorter readings are closer to the original ones. This logic is important to them since the B-text is mostly known for its shorter readings compared to other texts. James R. Royse pointed out how the scribes tended to error through omission, because it was easy to skip from a group of letters to a similar group of letters. Such mistakes are homoeoteleuton (end of word or line), homoeoarcton (beginning of word or line), haplography (loss of text leaping forward), and dittography (duplication by leaping backwards). [28] In fact, Royse reveals that though additions can be scribal errors, the inclination was to correct the reading rather than erring it. [29] How ironic since the common view is that additional words are more prone to error than omissions. Skeptics can see this error by omission as simply common sense since scribes can easily omit by not paying attention, becoming distracted, or getting sleepy. [30] The most serious criticism against the evangelicals is their assumption that no theological bias exists within the biblical transmission and translation. Many textual critics are familiar with what Origen said about the scribes deliberately making errors with ill intent:
“The differences between the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” [31]
Though scholars debate on what Origen really meant to say, T.M. Law, who researched the entire life of Origen and strongly defended his work, seemed to recognize possible ill intent and different beliefs from previous scribes. His thesis was that Origen’s Hexapla was exegetical based on different beliefs of previous scribes, not just critical or apologetic of Origen’s singular beliefs. [32] Royse agrees with other scholars that there are doctrinal motives behind scribal corrections with passages demonstrated from Epp, Parker, and Ehrman. [33] Surprisingly, evangelical scholars like Head and Wallace even admit that doctrinal biases exist within the texts. [34] Mitchell studied the Greco-Roman period of transmission in which deliberate corruptions of the Bible were widespread and referred to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, and 2 Peter 3:15-16. [35] Probably the most serious example is Vance Smith, a Unitarian from the Revised Version committee. He believed that the translation of some verses helped to support his Unitarian beliefs. [36]
Defense of Evangelical Textual Criticism
Though the previous examples seem to demonstrate serious problems for biblical inerrancy, the seriousness is not as significant as skeptics would have us believe. First, proximity is not really an issue, because a long gap does not prove one cannot trace an original word. Wallace explains how nonsensical it is to believe in classical authors (Homer, Herodotus, Plato) more than biblical authors when a gap of 300 years after composition shows no classical work existing, whereas the Bible had already been available. [37] Wallace reveals that nearly half of the New Testament can be traced to 150 years after composition. [38] Skepticism from time gaps is truly irrational, and this is seen when Ehrman relied on Origen’s quote of Celsius in spite of a gap of seventy years. [39] The abundance of manuscript evidence increases the chances of tracing the original word, rather than diminishing it. Otherwise, Ehrman would be unable to discover which words were corrupted, and Epp would be unable to use a various-conscious approach. Even if certain verses are truly corrupt and biased, major Christian doctrines are still preserved from the context of other verses and the abundant manuscripts. This explains why Jones, Metzger, and other scholars believe that original readings and major doctrines are still preserved despite thousands of variants. [40] Epp does not realize that suggestions for a various-conscious approach, internal considerations, and early church fathers is similar to Christians looking wholistically at the context of scriptures, manuscripts, and most orthodox readings. Mitchell used the historicity and stability of the community to explain that “macro-level” corruption would have been exposed easily since readers and authors would always inform each other if any plagiarism or corruption was spreading. [41] Even some authors allowed changes that preserved the “hypothesis” of the original work on a “micro-level” fluidity conditioned on a “macro-level” stability of the community reading and knowing about it. [42] Surprisingly, Ehrman agreed in his own blog with a Christian that main doctrines are unaffected despite thousands of variants. [43] Wallace cites Ehrman’s similar confession in a Q&A interview:
“The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof.
Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants
in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” [44]
Now, let us address the criticisms against the B-text and proximity method further. There are three points to be considered: (1) skeptics ignore other texts besides the B-text that can support biblical readings, (2) one can trace the original reading back through textual clusters and the most orthodox readings, and (3) patristic evidence is sufficient to practically reconstruct the entire New Testament.
Maurice Robinson’s “reasoned transmissionalism” is like Ehrman’s textual consanguinity
that traces the variances back into groups. [45] He agrees with Epp and other scholars that such groups are more like textual clusters. [46] Epp explained that the earliest manuscripts did not have to necessarily originate in Egypt, because there is much historical evidence that mail delivery of papyri, including religious works, was rampantly spreading throughout the Graeco-Roman world. It was common for churches to mail papyri from Jerusalem and Antioch that later ended up in Egypt. [47] Both Robinson and Epp agree that the papyri is not satisfactory evidence for original readings, and that mixed texts can be found in the papyri, not just a B-text. The only difference is that Robinson relies on an early Byzantine cluster while Epp does not. [48]
Epp satirizes “pious” Christians for their high regard of New Testament papyri when the social-historical context of Egypt shows most of them were tossed in rubbish piles, used to wrap dead bodies, and discarded with other unwanted manuscripts. [49] However, his criticism only supports Robinson’s point of view that the fourth century had a sudden explosion of Byzantine readings in different geographical locations while the B-text suddenly trickled and was discarded as lesser “original” readings by most churches. [50] As mentioned before, this shows that the Byzantine text existed during the early times of the B-text and was regarded the more “original” reading. However, it also shows that most orthodox readings support the Byzantine witness from the fourth century to over 1,500 years later. [51] Some have absurdly extrapolated it to an inerrant Textus Receptus from the Byzantine tradition, which is obviously very erroneous with its nearly 30 revisions and hundreds of variances with the Majority text, Byzantine text, and Byzantine Priority. [52]
But even if both the Byzantine and B-texts are unreliable, this still does not ignore a contextual observation at thousands of manuscripts to find the original word or doctrine. Yet in addition to this contextual support, textual reliability builds up well with orthodox support. Wallace cites Ehrman and Metzger that patristic quotations alone are sufficient to reconstruct the entire New Testament without the manuscripts. [53] Philip M. Miller reasonably questions Ehrman’s method to be biased towards the least orthodox readings, when the opposite should be more natural for textual critical methods. [54] In summary to all previous arguments, an original word and doctrine in the Bible can be scientifically traced through (1) a contextual observation at other biblical passages and abundant manuscripts, (2) a transmissional observation at textual clusters and their social-historical settings, and (3) a widespread observation at the most orthodox readings.
Limitations of Theological Arguments
It would be biased to conclude that the Bible is inerrant without recognizing limitations to theological arguments. An honest skeptic would not be satisfied that apparent errors can be explained away as mere reports for certain assertions. Remember that Erickson distinguishes from what the Bible reports with what the Bible affirms. However, what if a certain report is actually an assertion? Some of Erickson’s explanations for mere reports can appear to be somewhat non-Christian to an honest skeptic. Erickson thinks that Stephen’s preaching about the 400 years of slavery was an erred report, not affirmed by the Spirit, even though the Spirit filled him to speak it. [55] He seemed to deny miracles occurred, such as the walls of Jericho falling, the Jordan River being stopped, and an ax head floating since they were just phenomenal reports. [56] This case demonstrates how certain words can be seen as a report or assertion depending on one’s theological view of denying miracles or believing in them. Another case is the Chicago Statement, which is perhaps the most represented view of inerrancy that evangelicals cite. Article XII emphatically defends the inerrancy of scientific assertions in the Bible, but it dismisses scientific errors as merely observational descriptions of nature in Article XIII. [57] Here, Christians can cherry-pick whichever verse they want to be an assertion for science or a report that has nothing to do with science, and this is already a problem with Creationists and Christian Evolutionists debating each other of their own views of the texts. The point is, what determines an assertion or mere report? Many problematic texts can be answered satisfactorily with Erickson’s approach, but it is still abstract for other verses and can contribute to theological bias.
Biblical inerrancy still passes the test of scientific skepticism over textual and doctrinal biases due to a contextual outlook of abundant manuscripts. However, it does not change the fact that some verses affecting theological biases and doctrines do exist. Perry, McElroy, and Grubbs did actual experiments testing biases with different English bibles. They discovered positive associations with biases and different bibles regarding conservative beliefs, gender roles, overall religiosity, Catholic, Mormon, and “other Christian” identities. [58] More scientific critics are questioning Christians on how different bible translations will affect favored doctrinal positions as well as misogyny, slavery, and potentially antisemitism. [59] One cannot forget how Vance Smith from the Revised Version committee viewed Unitarian beliefs in the translated text. [60] Even Bill Mounce, who worked with bible translation committees, had to admit that a theological bias existed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 where perseverance or security of salvation can be read depending on which doctrine the translators favored. [61] Ehrman published Schachterle’s article that described how different denominations with their own theologies influenced different bible committees with their translations, such as the deity of Christ in Philippians 2:5-7. [62] Even without translator’s bias, it still does not discount the reader’s bias for certain words in different translations, and research shows that bias is on a greater level with readers than translators. [63] The conclusion of every scientific study always includes limitations and necessitates further research on the examined topic. It should not be ignored, but rather probed, or it would only validate what the skeptics have accused Christians for bias and ignorant faith.
This now leads an honest skeptic to see the limitations of science and bias as well, not just theology. As mentioned before, every scientific research should reveal its limitations. Bias should not be ignored, but rather probed in a scientific manner. Erickson scientifically argued how critics cannot presuppose errors without further data to clarify. There have been cases of what appeared to be textual errors that turned out to be historical and scientific truths when further data confirmed. [64] If Christians are accused of presupposing inerrancy and lacking science, then many scientists are guilty of doing the same. Stephen C. Meyer criticized how scientists presuppose a materialistic process or natural law that will eventually explain a fine tuned universe without any data. [65] If a fine-tuned universe demands no error within the materialistic process of 1 in 1010 123 (calculated by Roger Penrose, a colleague of Stephen Hawking), then that is quite an inerrant materialistic process to presuppose! [66] Yet, Meyer reveals how many scientists still presuppose or assume without convincing data. [67] Whether one likes it or not, every scientific hypothesis has some level of presupposition, so it is not “unscientific” to have a certain level. The only issue is when further data invalidates the hypothesis. If the data confirms, then scientists choose it as the best hypothesis, despite some level of presupposition, until a better hypothesis provides alternative convincing data. This concept is practiced by scientists as “confirmation of hypothesis” and “inference to the best explanation.” [68] A significant amount of archaeological, philological, and codicological data keep confirming our hypothesis of biblical inerrancy, which is why we choose it as the best hypothesis until alternative convincing data shows otherwise. Another approach to this confirmation hypothesis is what Mitchell wrote earlier about the hypothesis of a text being uncorrupted within macro-level communal stability despite micro-level changes. [69] This can probably extrapolate to the hypothesis of an uncorrupted or inerrant biblical text as well, despite micro-level variances. Even if we dismiss Mitchell, we still have the data and scientific grounds to maintain our current hypothesis with some level of presupposition until a better hypothesis is proposed. It is ironic how naturalists presuppose an “inerrant” materialistic explanation for a fine-tuned universe, yet Meyer reveals how further data keeps invalidating every conceivable materialistic hypothesis. [70] Hence, why is it unscientific to have a level of presupposition for an inerrant Bible confirmed by further data when scientists have a larger presupposition for an inerrant materialistic process invalidated by further data?
Confronting presupposition, perhaps a forefront authority is Gadamer. His thesis is that
all philosophical understandings are influenced by presuppositions so one must understand self bias first, question it, and contextualize the understanding of others until some negotiable validity is reached. [71] Erickson’s “post perspectivism” is similar with Gadamer’s approach, but it fits better with the scientific method. Gadamer confronts bias through contextual negotiation, but science seeks the best understanding or explanation, not a negotiation. Hence, Erickson agrees with Gadamer that a person must understand self-bias and contextualize other arguments, but the best explanation should be selected. [72] This is similar with what Meyer mentioned earlier about the inference to the best explanation that scientists select the best hypothesis from confirming data. From what we examined in previous arguments, inerrancy is still the best explanation since much scientific data confirms our hypothesis: over thousands of manuscripts with earliest readings more than any other historical document in the world. If skeptics still insist on the lack of “proof” for inerrant readings from the originals, then one must wonder if they will still be skeptical with the actual originals. Will they believe the originals to be the real originals if they actually existed? Such radical skepticism should make an academic scholar blush and embarrassed to call this view “scientific.”
Christians will not deny they have a bias, but like scientists, they do have a level of bias
or presupposition based on scientific grounding, not just spiritual. The Bible claims its own inspiration of words (2 Timothy 3:16). When Christians base their bias on what the Bible says about its own inspiration, it is not only a spiritual act of faith, but also a scientific act of reason. Erickson explains that it is natural to take into consideration the biblical writer’s own claim as one is developing a hypothesis on the nature of scripture. [73] Critics might assume circular reasoning on the Bible’s self-inspiration, but it only becomes circular when a person begins with presupposing the inspiration of the Bible. [74] Since the Bible is a historical document, Erickson argues that the scientific approach is to take into consideration what this historical document claims. [75] Even in court, the defendant’s testimony is taken into consideration with the evidence. If the evidence confirms the defendant’s claim, then the claim is true, whether we like it or not. If the data confirms the Bible’s claim, it must be taken as truth, whether we like it or not. This is a scientific act in which one takes into consideration the claim of a historical document, sees data confirming its claim, and selects the best hypothesis through inference to the best explanation. Until further data supports convincing error otherwise, the current hypothesis of an inerrant Bible still stands with a level of presupposition. This discounts other presuppositions or biases of skeptics until a better hypothesis is given with alternative data. Erickson describes the Bible’s claim to have such “intensiveness of inspiration” that sometimes “they regarded every word, syllable, and punctuation mark as significant.” [76] He demonstrates this with Jesus basing his argument on a plural number of gods to legitimize His use of deity (Psalms 82:6), the tense of a verb to show that God is the God of present living people (Matthew 23:32), and a possessive article to describe how David saw Christ as his Lord (Matthew 22:44). [77] Obviously, this does not mean all words in the manuscripts are inspired and inerrant due to the phenomena of thousands of variances. However, we can still find the right words that qualify as inerrant within a rich availability of manuscripts. Erickson makes sure to note that inspiration does not extend to the choice of every word, but it is so “intense” that the choice of particular words should be accounted for. [78]
Conclusion
The inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible has been demonstrated to pass the test of scientific skepticism. Scientific phenomena show apparent contradictions and thousands of variances. However, these textual issues can be harmonized, theologically redefined, and collated by abundant manuscript evidence. Skeptics make some valid criticisms against evangelical scholarship regarding the inconsistency of the proximity method, weaknesses with the B-text, indefinite comparisons with original readings, and theological biases in textual transmissions and translations. Evangelicals are able to respond by scientifically tracing original readings and main Christian doctrines through a contextual observation at other biblical passages and abundant manuscripts, a transmissional observation at textual clusters and their social-historical settings, and a widespread observation at the most orthodox readings. Despite of significant support from science, the limitations cannot be ignored with theological redefinitions that are vague and theological biases that influence translators and readers. Skeptics are concerned how future translations will affect major doctrines and cultural biases, and one wonders how much more concerning it will become when statistics show that the Bible will be translated for every culture in the world between 2026 and 2031. [79] Though there is presupposition for biblical inerrancy, it is natural for scientific hypotheses to have some level of bias, but through inference to the best explanation, inerrancy will remain as the best hypothesis since further data keeps validating. Gadamer’s hermeneutics and Erickson’s post perspectivism scientifically justify the bias and claim for an inerrant biblical text due to examining biased views, finding data that confirm the viewpoint, contextually understanding other viewpoints, and selecting the best view for a successful hypothesis. Erickson’s intensiveness of inspiration makes a strong claim for biblical inerrancy with inspiration being applied all the way down to certain words within the text. With such a strong claim, it would make sense why there is strong scientific data to confirm biblical inspiration: over thousands of manuscripts with earliest readings more than any other literature in the world.
^[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 199-200.
^[2] Ibid., 199.
^[3] Ibid., 200.
^[4] Ibid., 205.
^[5] Ibid., 205.
^[6] Ibid., 203-205.
^[7] Ibid., 200.
^[8] Ibid., 201-202
^[9] Ibid., 203-205.
^[10] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011), 24.
^[11] Ibid., 30.
^[11] Timothy P. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 37.
^[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2011), 40.
^[13] Timothy P. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 44.
^[14] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2011), 42-43.
^[15] Ibid., 27
^[16] Timothy P. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 43.
^[17] Bart D. Ehrman, “A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New Testament
Manuscripts.” Biblica 70, no. 3 (1989): 381, 386-387; Peter Gurry, “A Similarity Between Reasoned Eclecticism &
Byzantine Priority,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, Last modified June 2, 2016 https://evangelicaltextualcriticism
blogspot.com/2016/06/a-similarity-between-reasoned.html.
^[18] Ibid., 378-381.
^[19] Ibid., 378-381.
^[20] Eldon J. Epp, “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.”
Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 3 (July 2007): 296.
^[21] Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard
Theological Review 92, no. 3 (July 1999): 260-261; Eldon J. Epp, “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious
Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 3 (July 2007): 297
^[22] Eldon J. Epp, “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.”
Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 3 (July 2007): 298-307.
^[23] Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard
Theological Review 92, no. 3 (July 1999): 260-261.
^[24] Eldon J. Epp. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962-2004 (Boston, MA:
BRILL, 2005), 756-758.
^[25] Maurice Robinson, “The Byzantine Text with DR. MAURICE ROBINSON, and the contribution of WILLIAM G.
PIERPONT,” Interview by Dwayne Green, Video, 10:32, July 7, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KSqrmDxqGU&t=398s.
^[26] Maurice Robinson, “The STRONGEST Defense of the BYZANTINE TEXT!” Interview by Dwayne Green,
Video, 1:21, July 31, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHI9n9V4RRw.
^[27] Eldon J. Epp, “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.”
Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 3 (July 2007): 305-306.
^[28] James R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament,” in The Text of the
New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Boston, MA: BRILL,
2012), 462.
^[29] Ibid., 463.
^[30] Bart D. Ehrman, “The Strange World of Textual Criticism,” The Bart Ehrman Blog. Last modified October 27,
2022. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-strange-world-of-textual-criticism/.
^[31] Timothy P. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 41.
^[32] Timothy M. Law, “Origen’s Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?” Journal of Theological
Studies 59, no. 1 (April 2008): 9-19.
^[33] James R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament,” in The Text of the
New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Boston, MA: BRILL,
2012), 463.
^[34] Peter M. Head, “Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels,” Novum
Testamentum 35, no. 2 (1993): 26; Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011), 43, 52.
^[35] Timothy Mitchell, “Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the
New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, no. 2
(October 2020): 290-291.
^[36] George V. Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly
Reviewed (London, UK: The British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881), 6.
^[37] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2011), 29-30.
^[38] Ibid., 30.
^[39] Ibid., 29-30.
^[40] Timothy P. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 21.
^[41] Timothy Mitchell, “Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the
New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, no. 2
(October 2020): 275-289.
^[42] Ibid., 291.
^[43] Kurt Jaros. “Do Textual Critics Have to be Radical Skeptics?” The Bart Ehrman Blog. Last modified March 31,
2022. https://ehrmanblog.org/do-textual-critics-have-to-be-radical-skeptics-guest-post-by-kurt-jaros/.
^[44] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2011), 55.
^[45] Maurice Robinson, “Dr. Robinson DEBUNKS THIS myth about the Byzantine text,” Interview by Stephen
Hackett, Biblical Studies and Reviews, Video, 14:37, August 22, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjeZ_n6cv4; Maurice Robinson, “The Byzantine Text with DR. MAURICE
ROBINSON, and the contribution of WILLIAM G. PIERPONT,” Interview by Dwayne Green, Video, 10:32, July 7,
2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KSqrmDxqGU&t=398s.
^[46] Ibid.; Eldon J. Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of
the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Boston, MA: BRILL,
2012), 519-572.
^[47] Eldon J. Epp. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962-2004 (Boston, MA:
BRILL, 2005), 365-366, 370.
^[48] Ibid., 368-377; Maurice Robinson, “Earliest is BEST? Dr. Robinson responds to James White’s objections,”
Interview by Stephen Hackett, Biblical Studies and Reviews, Video, 16:04, September 30, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQKCj5Gr4qg.
^[49] Eldon J. Epp. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962-2004 (Boston, MA:
BRILL, 2005), 386-387.
^[50] Maurice Robinson, “The STRONGEST Defense of the BYZANTINE TEXT!” Interview by Dwayne Green,
Video, 1:21, July 31, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHI9n9V4RRw.
^[51] Maurice Robinson, “The Byzantine Text with DR. MAURICE ROBINSON, and the contribution of WILLIAM G.
PIERPONT,” Interview by Dwayne Green, Video, 10:32, July 7, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KSqrmDxqGU&t=398s.
^[52] Mark Ward, “Maurice Robinson vs. KJV-Onlyism,” Interview by Mark Ward and Timothy Berg, Video, 34:20,
February 29, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvfV-JBNq8; Mark Ward, “Which TR Is the Perfectly
Preserved One?” Video, 52:21, March 7, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BxWdMAnXOE.
^[53] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
2011), 28.
^[54] Ibid., 57.
^[55] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 202.
^[56] Ibid., 203.
^[57] International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy, “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 4 (Dec 1978): 291, “Article XII” and “Article XIII.”
^[58] Samuel L. Perry and Joshua B. Grubbs, “Formal or Functional? Traditional or Inclusive? Bible Translations as
Markers of Religious Subcultures,” Sociology of Religion 81, no. 3 (February 2020): 319; Samuel L. Perry and
Elizabeth McElroy, “Does the Bible Tell Me So? Weighing the Influence of Content versus Bias on Bible
Interpretation Using Survey Experiments,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59, no. 4 (August 2020): 569
^[59] Samuel L. Perry and Elizabeth McElroy, “Does the Bible Tell Me So? Weighing the Influence of Content versus
Bias on Bible Interpretation Using Survey Experiments,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59, no. 4
(August 2020): 571.
^[60] George V. Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly
Reviewed (London, UK: The British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881), 6.
^[61] Mounce, Bill. “Theological Bias in Translation (1 Cor 15:1-2).” Bill Mounce: For an Informed Love of God,
January 6, 2022. Video, 7:24.
https://www.billmounce.com/bible-study-greek/theological-bias-translation-1-cor-15-1-2.
^[62] Joshua B. Schachterle, “Bible Translations Comparison: Exploring the Versions of the Bible.” Bart Ehrman. Last
modified February 20, 2024. https://www.bartehrman.com/bible-translations/.
^[63] Samuel L. Perry and Elizabeth McElroy, “Does the Bible Tell Me So? Weighing the Influence of Content versus
Bias on Bible Interpretation Using Survey Experiments,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59, no. 4
(August 2020): 585.
^[64] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 205.
^[65] Stephen C. Meyers, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York, NY: Harper One, 2021), 423.
^[66] Ibid., 150.
^[67] Ibid., 423-426.
^[68] Ibid., 223-225.
^[69] Timothy Mitchell, “Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the
New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, no. 2
(October 2020): 291.
^[70] Stephen C. Meyers, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York, NY: Harper One, 2021), 69-213, 301-406.
^[71] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Hans-Georg Gadamer,” Last modified August 22, 2022
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/#PosPre
^[72] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 36-38.
^[73] Ibid., 170.
^[74] Ibid., 170.
^[75] Ibid., 170.
^[76] Ibid., 180.
^[77] Ibid., 180-181.
^[78] Ibid., 181.
^[79] Matthias Gerner, “Why Worldwide Bible Translation Grows Exponentially,” Journal of
Religious History 42, no. 2 (June 2018): 145-180.
Bibliography
Gerner, Matthias. “Why Worldwide Bible Translation Grows Exponentially.” Journal of Religious History 42, no. 2 (June 2018): 145-180.
Gurry, Peter. “A Similarity Between Reasoned Eclecticism & Byzantine Priority.” Evangelical Textual Criticism. Last modified June 2, 2016. https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-similarity-between reasoned.html.
Ehrman, Bart D. “A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New Testament Manuscripts.” Biblica 70, no. 3 (1989): 377–388.
Ehrman, Bart D. “The Strange World of Textual Criticism.” The Bart Ehrman Blog. Last modified October 27, 2022. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-strange-world-of-textual-criticism/.
Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Boston, MA: BRILL, 2012.
Epp, Eldon J. “It’s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 3 (July 2007): 275-308.
Epp, Eldon J. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962 2004. Boston, MA: BRILL, 2005.
Epp, Eldon J. “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 3 (July 1999): 245-281.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Head, Peter M. “Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels.” Novum Testamentum 35, no. 2 (1993): 105–129.
International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy, “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 4 (Dec 1978): 291, “Article XII” and “Article XIII.”
Jaros, Kurt. “Do Textual Critics Have to be Radical Skeptics?” The Bart Ehrman Blog. Last modified March 31, 2022. https://ehrmanblog.org/do-textual-critics-have-to-be radical skeptics-guest-post-by-kurt-jaros/.
Jones, Timothy P. Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus.” Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
Law, Timothy M. “Origen’s Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?” Journal of Theological Studies 59, no. 1 (April 2008): 1-22.
Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis. New York, NY: Harper One, 2021.
Mitchell, Timothy. “Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, no. 2 (October 2020): 266-298.
Mounce, Bill. “Theological Bias in Translation (1 Cor 15:1-2).” Bill Mounce: For an Informed Love of God, January 6, 2022. Video, 7:24. https://www.billmounce.com/bible study-greek/theological-bias-translation-1-cor-15-1-2.
Perry, Samuel L. and Elizabeth McElroy. “Does the Bible Tell Me So? Weighing the Influence of Content versus Bias on Bible Interpretation Using Survey Experiments.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 59, no. 4 (August 2020): 569-585.
Perry, Samuel L. and Joshua B. Grubbs. “Formal or Functional? Traditional or Inclusive? Bible Translations as Markers of Religious Subcultures.” Sociology of Religion 81, no. 3 (February 2020): 319-342.
Robinson, Maurice. “Dr. Robinson DEBUNKS THIS myth about the Byzantine text.” Interview by Stephen Hackett. Biblical Studies and Reviews, August 22, 2023. Video, 14:37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjeZ_n6cv4
Robinson, Maurice. “Earliest is BEST? Dr. Robinson responds to James White’s objections.” Interview by Stephen Hackett. Biblical Studies and Reviews, September 30, 2023. Video, 16:04. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQKCj5Gr4qg.
Robinson, Maurice. “The Byzantine Text with DR. MAURICE ROBINSON, and the contribution of WILLIAM G. PIERPONT.” Interview by Dwayne Green. Video, 10:32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KSqrmDxqGU&t=398s.
Robinson, Maurice. “The STRONGEST Defense of the BYZANTINE TEXT!” Interview by Dwayne Green. Video, 1:21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHI9n9V4RRw.
Schachterle, Joshua B. “Bible Translations Comparison: Exploring the Versions of the Bible.” Bart Ehrman. Last modified February 20, 2024. https://www.bartehrman.com/bible translations/.
Smith, George V. Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed. London, UK: The British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Hans-Georg Gadamer.” Last modified August 22, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/#PosPre
Wallace, Daniel B. Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011.
Ward, Mark. “Maurice Robinson vs. KJV-Onlyism.” Interview by Mark Ward and Timothy Berg. Video, 34:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvfV-JBNq8
Ward, Mark. “Which TR Is the Perfectly Preserved One?” Video, 52:21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BxWdMAnXOE
