Erhman's underlying presupposition which he states repeatedly in his debates and books is that is God miracuously inspired the the text, then He would have miraculously preserved them (i.e. without textual variation in the manuscript tradition). The presence of textual variation in the manuscript tradition and the difficulty of discerning which of the variant readings is the 'original' is therefore proof to him that it was never inspired in the first place. He makes this very clear in his debates with James White and Dan Wallace, challenging them to show him with absolute certainty which reading is the original and to explain how they know which is which. What I have been struck by is his utter inability to see that his underlying presupposition is a theological presupposition and is not a logical necessity (though he repeatedly claims he is 'just a historian'). Dr. White got him to admit that by his own standards, we can't really know anything any ancient writer really said.
His 'former evangelical' claim is often brought up as a Damascus Road conversion story which he uses to gain credibility with Christians. "I used to believe the same thing you did." He also claims that Christian scholars are 'hiding the facts' and trying to 'lull' people into thinking that the Bible is just fine, don't listen to those historians over there!
On that note, I know James White is in the process of writing a book refuting Dr. Ehrman. I donot know when this is to be published but I know it is is in the works. I look forward to it myself.
Joseph Ivory
RE, Providence PCA
"Therefore, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood."
Acts 20:28
Bookmarks