The Utter Failure of Restorationist Textual Criticism — a Demonstration

Some time ago, I was revisiting this “classic” debate between the well-known apologist James White and renowned author and New Testament textual scholar Bart Ehrman. Whenever I come across a debate, I almost always go straight to the cross-exam section. Cross-examination is by far my favorite portion of any moderated debate because both individuals are no longer going off of a script. They are forced to interact with each other and defend their respective positions directly. There is no room to wiggle out of a question without it being painfully obvious that you are doing so. The question being debated between these two men was “Did the Bible misquote Jesus?” with Ehrman answering in the affirmative (he wrote an entire book on the subject called “Misquoting Jesus”) and James answering in the negative. Specifically they are debating whether or not we can actually restore the original text of the New Testament using the empirical methods of modern textual criticism. That is what is consistently contested throughout this debate. James White affirms the restorationist view underlying the critical Greek text behind modern versions, so this debate is a chance for the individual Christian to see this methodology in action within an apologetical setting. Of course, White and Ehrman share the exact same views on this subject, the only difference being that they disagree on the logical conclusion.

Normally in the cross-examination section of a debate, when you have two proponents who are both very well-versed in a subject and able to strongly defend their position, each person goes on the offensive when cross-examining his opponent. Sadly, we don’t see that at all in this debate. Ehrman utterly dominated James White, one could even argue that he embarassed him a few times. It was like watching a cat toying with a mouse.

Beginning at the 8:18 mark, Ehrman asks White about his position that “the original text is preserved somewhere in the manuscript tradition” and that somewhere among all of the various readings, the original reading is to be found. Dr. White gives a hearty approval. Then Ehrman asks him a simple question: “Why do you think of this?”.

Such a question is simple enough. If someone were to ask me (and they have) why I believe that I have the word of God and that it is inspired, I answer them with Scripture — God not only inspired the Scriptures, but he also promised to providentially preserve the text and words of scripture, such that His people would have access to it and certainty concerning contents. Moreover, the Spirit of God bears record with the word of God in my heart, giving me faith to believe these promises. Of course, there is also lots of evidence that can be discussed pointing to the Bible’s authenticity and divine inspiration, but ultimately the thing that brings a man to faith in God’s word is the inward work of the Holy Ghost.

So then, to what reason does James White ascribe his faith in the preservation of God’s word? At the 9:04 mark he says “Because that seems to be the conclusion of Kurt Aland”. Aland was a liberal who denied the canonicty of several books of the New Testament and promoted ecumenism. He was a teacher of heretic Bruce Metzger, who has been quoted before on this blog.

But a particular point in this debate which I believe to be one of the most significant begins at the 34:34 mark. The reader is encouraged to listen for his or herself, but White asked the following question:

When you repeatedly say that we don’t know what the original writings of the New Testament said, given that there are entire sections of text where there is no variation basically at all, would you agree that we know what those sections of the New Testament said?

Ehrman answers by giving a very clear, logical, and concise explanation for his reasoning, which I shall also quote verbatum:

Let’s say Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians and they got a copy. And then somebody made a copy of that original and made a couple mistakes and then somebody copied that copy and made a few mistakes. And then the original was lost and the first copy was lost. All other manuscripts ultimately derive from that third copy. In other words, the original wasn’t copied anymore, the first copy wasn’t copied anymore, the second copy was copied twice, both of those were copied five times, each of those were copied 20 times, they all go back in a genealogial line to the third copy, rather than to the original. All you can reconstruct is what was in the third copy.

Notice the question that is posed by Dr. White. His question essentially concedes the point that we can’t know what the New Testament originally said, but then asks Ehrman if we can at least know what some of it said. This question reflects an utterly weak view of preservation. White concedes far too much here, but this concession is necessitated by his own position. There is no room for certainty of possessing a 100% infallible and inerrant inspired text on James White’s view.

There are frankly several issues that I have spotted in this section of the debate, but this one point alone succinctly summarizes the utter failure of the restorationist position. If you abandon God’s promise of providential preservation, and walk only by sight, rather than by faith in those promises, then you have no certainty of perfect preservation.

I encourage the readers to listen to the whole debate, and especially the cross-examination section.