On Wednesday January 21, Dr. James White and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman were engaged in a debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The resolution on the floor: “Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?” After the debate the two men had a completely negative impression of each other. Dr Ehrman posted the video of the debate in his blog with with an introduction that in part read:
I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin. To be fair, he would probably not call himself a fundamentalist. Then again, in my experience, very few fundamentalists *do* call themselves fundamentalists.and Dr white wrote:
He did not prepare for the debate, had no idea who I am, and did not read anything I’ve ever written, hence, he was in a tough spot, given that I had studied his works so thoroughly. As a result, he made horrific blunders in misrepresenting me in his rebuttal. (...) I think those in attendance were a little surprised at Dr. Ehrman’s treatment of me, but I wasn’t overly surprised,In the debate itself Ehrman , based on the facts that there are as many differences in the manuscripts as there are words in the New Testament, argued that those differences do matter, some of them are distorting the doctrinal principles of Christianity and some actually change the meaning of whole books of the bible, such as the book of Hebrews. White argued that the differences are inconsequential and didn't matter.
Dr. Ehrman argued that since the manuscripts of the Bible exist in multiple fragments which contain many discrepancies, therefore they in fact do not preserve God’s word. He asked if God inspired the texts then why didn't God also preserve the original texts? Dr. White retorted that Dr. Ehrman elsewhere in his writings and interviews denies "the orthodox doctrine of inspiration"! The problem with this line of argument is that, every other religion can easily utilize "the orthodox doctrine of inspiration", and sell any garbage they want to sell! As, indeed, many do so. The argument doesn't go anywhere, because I don't believe in the authenticity of your doctrine and you don't believe in mine
Ehrman and White also debated how old the manuscripts of the New Testament are. They agreed that the differences between the older manuscripts are more numerous, and more pronounced than the differences among the more recent manuscripts. For instance, the 2nd to 4th century manuscripts have many more corrupted texts than those written in the subsequent era of the 4th to 9th century. This, of course, would imply that finding an old manuscript is not going to be of much help for identifying the original text of the bible. Because the earliest uneducated, and untrained scribes have been less careful or less concerned about the authenticity and veracity of their texts. Accordingly, professor Ehrman argued that it is impossible to know what the original manuscripts contained. Dr. White maintained that the differences among some of the oldest manuscripts are not that significant, which is, of course, a bogus argument, because one needs to look at a larger sample than just two, in order to arrive at a valid inference.
White argued that Scripture manuscripts are more reliable than any other classical manuscripts, and he wanted that Ehrman to admit that based on the similar reliability criteria as those of classic manuscripts, scriptures would be more reliable. However, why use a probabilistic criteria for the words of God, or at least for words inspired by God?!
Dr white, like other evangelical textual critics, tried to argue that textual differences are inconsequential. He argued that most of the original bible can be reproduced from the existing manuscripts. Of course, as we have argued in the past, the original bible is the gospel of Jesus in Hebrew, and not 27 books written mostly by anonymous Greek writers pretending to be Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John! Ehrman response, however, was that "If these discrepancies are immaterial, then why is it that Dan Wallace is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars running around cataloging and photographing manuscripts? (...) What does he tell his sponsors, those funding him? I'm doing all of this because it doesn't matter?! Of course he doesn't tell them that, because they do matter! Why check for all the variants and look very carefully at all of them if they don't matter?"
In the above video Dr. White, tries to refute Ehrman's argument about the discrepancy of a story in Mark and Matthew in which Jesus “came into his own city” (probably Capernaum—Matthew 9:1). Soon thereafter, a man by the name of Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, fell at Jesus’ feet and worshipped Him saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live” (Matthew 9:18).
Whereas in the in the gospel of Mark, the man says that his daughter was “at the point of death” (Mark 5:23) and in the gospel of Luke the man says that “she was dying” (Luke 8:42). Many evangelists try to whitewash such a difference in the "inspired words of god" by arguing that the alleged contradiction may be a simple misunderstanding of what Matthew actually wrote about the dying child. According to them the Greek word, rendered “ she has just died,” does not of necessity mean that she had actually died! It just means that she was “dying” or about to die! They argue that there is not as much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutesn (“has just died”; cf. Hebrews 11:22) and eschates echer (“is dying,” NIV) in Mark 5:23 . This is a very interesting argument, we can say anything we want and then say that it could mean something else! It is quite amusing to read a number of other various explanations offered by various apologists who had let their imaginations running wild. Some, like the sixteenth-century Lutheran scholar Osiander, even tried to alleviate the tensions by claiming that Matthew and Mark–Luke were simply reporting different incidents!
Dr. white, on the other hand, argues that Matthew's version is just a summary of the events in comparison to Mark, and this is why Matthew just has cut the chase and moved from "dying" to "died". Of course the discrepancy among the three narratives is not just the question of dying versus died. While in Matthew the petitioner is an unnamed ruler (ἄρχων εἷς, Mt. 9.18), both Mark and Luke assert that his name was Jairus and that he served as a synagogue leader (εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, Mk 5.22; ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος . . . ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς, Lk. 8.41). According to Matthew, on the first meeting with Jesus, the father informed Jesus that his daughter had just died (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν, Mt. 9.18) and made a request for him to come along to raise his daughter from the dead (ζήσεται, Mt. 9.18; cf. the similar translation,‘dann wird sie wieder lebendig’, Einheitsübersetzung).
According to Mark and Luke, the child was on the verge of death but still alive when the father came to Jesus (ἐσχάτως ἔχει, Mk 5.23; αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν ‘she was dying’, Lk. 8.42): his request was for the healing of his daughter, not for her resuscitation. In comparison to Mark and Luke some features are strikingly absent from Matthew, such as the accompanying crowd (Mk 5.21, 24, 27, 30-31; Lk. 8.40, 42, 45; cf. 8.47). There is, in fact, a reference to ‘the crowd’ (ὁ ὄχλος) in Mt. 9.23, 25, but that crowd corresponds to the θόρυβος before the house of Jairus in Mk 5.38, not to the crowd that accompanied Jesus and Jairus from the start (cf. Cousland 2002: 40). Further points include the haemorrhaging woman’s address to Jesus (Mk 5.33; Lk. 8.47), the dramatic report of the messengers from the ruler’s house evoking Jesus’ words of comfort (Mk 5.35-36; Lk. 8.49-50), and the information about the girl’s age, which happens to correspond to the duration of the haemorrhaging woman’s illness (Mk 5.42; Lk. 8.42).
Furthermore, at the climax of the episode Matthew allows no bystanders to witness Jesus performing the resurrection miracle (Mt. 9.25), while in Mark and Luke the room where the miracle takes place tends to become somewhat overcrowded with Jesus, Jairus, his daughter, his wife and three of the disciples, Peter, James and John (Mk 5.37, 40; Lk. 8.51). In addition, the narrative context of the Matthaean version, notably its spatial setting, differs from Mark and Luke: Jesus and his disciples seem to be in a house in the company of ‘many tax collectors and sinners’ and visited by disciples of John the Baptist (Mt. 9.9-13, 14-17), while according to Mark and Luke Jesus had just disembarked from the boat that had brought him back from the country of the Gerasenes and was now by the lakeside surrounded by a large crowd, presumably in open space (Mk 5.21; Lk. 8.40). Further discrepancies can be added to these few examples, but those listed here are the most prominent and have been subjected to much painstaking research from an early period.
And here are various Greek versions of Mark 5:35:
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανε· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Edition
ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν, τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανε· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:35 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον
Mark 5:35 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον;
... and here are various Greek versions of Matthew 9:18
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ' αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς προσελθὼν / ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ' αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Tαῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, ἰδού, ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ, λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Edition
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἰσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, ἰδού, ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ, λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 9:18 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδού, ἄρχων ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ' αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται
Matthew 9:18 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
Ταύτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἰς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρα σου ἐπ’ αὐτὴν καὶ ζήσεται.
No comments:
Post a Comment