Why Textual Criticism is “Safe” for Conservative Christians

Reblogged from the blog of Bart Ehrman, an American professor and scholar


It is probably not an accident that when I was a very conservative evangelical Christian who wanted to get a PhD in New Testament studies, I chose to focus, in particular, on textual criticism, the study of manuscripts in order to establish the wording of the original text.  That was, and is, a fairly common “track” for evangelicals who want to be biblical scholars.  Maybe it’s not as common now as it used to be.  But it used to be common.

As it turns out, most of the scholars who work in the field of New Testament textual criticism in North America either are or used to be committed evangelical Christians.   You might think that the findings of textual criticism would drive evangelicals away from their faith.  But just the opposite is the case.  I know very few people who have found their faith challenged by their knowledge of the textual problems of the New Testament.  Very few indeed.  I was a bit of an oddball that way.  (I’ll say more about that in a future post.)

The reason most textual scholars in this country are, or used to be, evangelical Christians (and throughout the world, if they are not evangelicals, they are at least fairly conservative Christians) – and the reason I probably was attracted to textual criticism myself as an evangelical – is that this is one field of biblical studies that is considered “safe” for those with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture.

Most New Testament scholars are deeply interested in and committed to views of “higher criticism,” the rigorously historical attempt to understand the New Testament.  Engaging in this kind of critical work virtually presupposes that one will acknowledge (and be willing to discover) that there are historical problems with the New Testament: discrepancies, contradictions, historical errors, and factual mistakes.  The goal of higher criticism is not simply to point out such problems.  The goal is to provide a historically rooted understanding of the text.  But for most scholars, doing so means acknowledging that such problems exist, simply at the starting point.

But evangelical scholars – such as I, when I was at that stage – simply refuse to acknowledge that view.  Which means they cannot start where all the other critical scholars start.  They start not with the sense that the New Testament needs to be treated like all other books from the ancient world, but that it needs to be treated differently, as the inspired Word of God.  But if that’s the starting assumption, you can’t really do the kinds of analysis that others apply with their own assumption that the New Testament is a very human book with all the frailties that a close connection with fallible human authors entails.

And so it is very hard to be a New Testament interpreter as an evangelical if you want to work in and contribute to scholarship done by others in the field.  It can be done (depending on which interpretive issues you’re dealing with), but it’s very tricky.   This is true on so many levels.  For example, if you don’t think there can be any contradictions in the Gospels, then your interpretation of a passage in Matthew that is also in Mark will be affected, because you will not be able to acknowledge that Matthew has changed something in Mark in a way that is at odds with it.  But that kind of acknowledgment is absolutely fundamental to a historical-critical understanding of  Matthew.

Or if you refuse to acknowledge that there are letters in the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul which in fact were written by someone else simply claiming to be Paul, then your interpretation of those letters will be radically different from someone who, on historical-critical grounds, thinks that some of the thirteen letters claiming to be written by Paul were written in fact by someone else.   If you think Paul wrote 1 Timothy (evangelicals as a rule do; non-evangelicals, among the scholars, as a rule do not), then you would use 1 Timothy as evidence for what Paul thought and taught, and you would interpret 1 Timothy in light of what Paul says elsewhere and you would interpret what Paul says elsewhere in relation to what he says in 1 Timothy.  If you think Paul did not write the letter, you simply would not treat it that way.  And your interpretation would be massively different.

And so, if you want to talk with other scholars in the field, or publish articles and books in the field in journals and presses that presuppose historical-critical views and approaches,  and you have a completely different set of assumptions and presuppositions … well, it’s very hard.  Most of the time it doesn’t work.

Let me stress – I can’t stress this enough, although roughly 36% of my readers won’t believe me or possibly hear me – I am NOT saying there cannot be evangelical scholars of the New Testament.  That is absolutely not the case, in the least.  There are lots of evangelical scholars of the New Testament.  Some of them superb scholars.  BUT, if they approach the New Testament from the point of view that there can be no mistakes of any kind in the New Testament (that would be a very hard-core evangelical, and certainly a fundamentalist, position) then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.

And so fundamentalists – people like me back then – simply do not work in the realm of the critical scholars.  They do scholarship for fundamentalists.

How to avoid that problem if you are a fundamentalist or hard-core conservative evangelical?  One of the most popular ways to avoid it is to work in an area of New Testament studies where your presuppositions about the inspiration of Scripture have almost NO bearing on your work.   And one area where that is true is textual criticism.  Anyone, with any personal theological views about the inspiration of Scripture, can study the manuscripts of the New Testament to determine what the authors originally wrote.  It’s a very difficult field to work in, because it involves massive expertise in a range of complicated areas.   But it does not require a person either to presuppose or not to presuppose that the words written by the biblical authors are inspired by God.

And so many evangelicals who want to be serious biblical scholars turn to textual criticism.  It is a “safe” discipline.  That too is what I did, when deciding what to focus on in my graduate studies.

Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity

27 replies

  1. Ehrman is on record as having said that his faith was challenged by the problem of evil and not because of textual issues.


  2. If I get it right Bart Ehrman says many conservative Christians feel forced by their belief to cherry-pick the scholarship they want to work in.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. From the 3:18 minute mark to the 15:09 mark, Dr. White did an excellent job of exposing your inconsistency on this issue, Paul.

    He just replaced the words New Testament with the Qur’an and NT scholars with Sunni Scholars and Matthew and Mark with 2 Surahs that have different words and details but are of the same event and the double standard is fully exposed.


    • That’s because dr White has no idea about Quran and its history!
      Also, James -as I know and correct me If I am wrong- affirms what dr Ehrman says regarding the ( given points) , but he disagrees -making no sense- about ( the conclusions) !
      For example, James agrees that the story of the adulterer woman is added. He agrees that some verses such as ” those three are one” are added. Yet Bart calls that as a (corruption), James calls it ( Free style of transmission), and James thinks that was the ” best way to prsersve a text” !!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • No, his book shows he knows the Qur’an and the Hadith – his book, “What Every Christian Should know about the Qur’an” – Excellent.
      He has read through all of Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and parts of the other Sunni Hadith collections.

      Those verses were added centuries later. None of them affect any doctrine, since the doctrines are taught in other places.


    • It effects the doctrine of inerrancy. Destroys it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I gurantee that he has no idea more than any christian apologist!
      However, christians think anyone reading or talking about hadith or quran is a professional in this field snice christians themselves have bo idea about Islamic subjects! It’s like when someone pretends talking a foreign language, and you are amazed by him just becuase that you have no idea about that language! You don’t realize that he is bluffing.
      ” Theses verses are added centries later”

      Good! Then the normal conclusion would be that your books were dealth with corruption! Monks added chunks or even a verse in that significant supporting a biased belief to your texts! That’s by itself should warn us that we should not trust these texts. That’s it.


    • Oh dear. What’s this? He can’t even produce an adequate tu quoque, so he tinkers one himself?

      Ken you should give yourself a brake. Seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lol he loves to preach at people he’s a southern baptist after all.


  4. He replaced the words in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Ehrman’s article (NT to Qur’an; Evangelical Scholars to Sunni Scholars, etc. ) with the Qur’an and Sunni Scholars, etc. and the inconsistency is exposed.


  5. ” . . . then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.”

    Not true; it is because the liberals look down upon them and don’t even allow them to publish in their journals that they have been forced to set up their own journals and seminaries, etc. – because they don’t allow for the idea of God who actually works and inspires Scripture and does miracles. They have an anti-supernatural bias against the idea that God is active in the world and was active in inspiring the Scriptures and speaking through prophets and apostles.


  6. But evangelical scholars – such as I, when I was at that stage – simply refuse to acknowledge that view.

    Actually the opposite is true. It is the Evangelicals who interact with the liberal views and critique them. It is the liberals who ignore conservative scholarship, much in the same arrogant way that Paul Williams treats those who believe in inerrancy as “backwards fundamentalists who are not intellectual enough for him”.


  7. lol. that’s how you respond when you have no intellectual response.



    THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism [Second Edition] by Edward D. Andrews

    MISREPRESENTING JESUS: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” [Second Edition] by Edward D. Andrews

    THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT The Science and Art of Textual Criticism by Don Wilkins and Edward D. Andrews

    Christian Publishing House is a conservative, apologetical publishing house. Our blog is (https://christianpublishinghouse.co/). We have two ways that you can read our books free as a Google eBook. You can get one by just following our blog, then email us with your book choice and your Google account email. We add your email to that book and send you the link in a reply.

    READ/ RATE/ REVIEW: you can read any of our books for free if you rate and review them on those three stores once you are done. Just think, it would take about five minutes to write a couple of sentences, throw down a rating by clicking the appropriate star, hopefully, a five star, and then copy and paste it twice more for a free book of any kind. You just write in each time to this email, say, “I would like to rate and review _____________, replacing the blank space with the title. We add your email to Google books and give you the link so that you can read it online or on one of your devices.

    Moreover, you can share this read, rate and review program with all who may enjoy reading for free.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: