St. Thomas More's response to Bart Ehrman

For some time I've been investing in personal study and research. As I've been lured by the marketing device of being a "life long learner", I've gotten into the Great Courses lecture series. I have been, overall, satisfied in what I've received. That is to say, not surprised that it is all completely atheistic and non-conclusionary reasoning.  "Oh yes, we have all this evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus and what he said; but we can't go so far as to say he rose from the dead and established a divinely guided Church using the same standards that brought us to the conclusion he existed etc." sort of nonsense. And in a round about way that too is what is being addressed here.

To make a long story short, I ordered The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament by the Biblical scholar, and author of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Dr. Bart Ehrman. I’ll save you much time, money, and eye rolling, and simply tell you it's really only mind blowing to one that believes in the heresy,  and myth, of Sola Scriptura. "The Bible Alone". The good professor basically spends hours telling us that there are variations and discrepancies in the New Testament manuscripts that fundamentally undermine the notion that the Bible's inerrant and divinely inspired. In many cases it’s painful to watch for an armchair scholar and apologist like myself.

Yet, it is quite scandalizing to the average Christian that has been fed a consistent diet of Sunday school, feel good, be nice, don't offend anyone, Jesus is my co-pilot Christianity. A Christianity that has no interest, and no root in Tradition or Church history. We've all encountered them. The Fr. Barrons decrying the Crusades and Inquisitions etc. without seriously understanding what they're distancing themselves from in order to be more appealing to the secularist sentiments of the day. But I digress… The scandal comes from the fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible is and what it’s meant to achieve. 

So a quick crash course: Apostolic Churches trace their origins from the apostles themselves and therefore Christ himself, not the Bible. The Bible comes from the authority of the Church, not the other way round. This is why scripture itself states the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth... 1 Timothy 3:15. I need to address this point, as at the time of that passage being put to parchment, there was no Bible in existence as we understand it. Forget about it being finalized. The gospels were in a fluid state of transcribing the many oral traditions, events, and biographical points of Christ, His Church, and the doctrines and creeds thereof. Indeed, there is not even a time limit given for when this authority ends. 

Therefore, when Ehrman argues that John 7:53-8:11 is a latter addition, and Mark's ending was "added later" for example, the challenge is not really all that strong. If an oral tradition is still active, and it could be established that the narratives had Apostolic imperator, why would it be remiss to add it to the gospel text at a later date? Or as the early Church called them, the biographies. And I believe this is an important insight. Would we argue that a later addition to a biography of Winston Churchill makes the whole biography suspect because of variations and additions to the text based on newly available information; or to address the immediate needs of the audience the text is intended for? Am I to believe if Dr. Ehrman mat a second edition of his book with additional passages the whole work is therefore subject to severe skepticism? As a teaching tool, obviously an extended ending to the gospel of Mark makes sense for overall catechises. It's not a conspiracy and it’s not certainly not dishonest or discrediting. Is it seriously out of the realm of possibility that the authentic story of John 7:53-8:11 was so beloved, so well known, and so recognized by the community as authentic apostolic teaching, that it was included without resistance by the Christian community at a later date; AKA the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The criticisms are only scandalous if one sees the Bible as divorced from the authority of the Church as a living teaching tool and prophetic voice of God on Earth; basicly a dead forensic archaeological text. 

Let me give another comparison. The great gothic cathedrals of Europe. These towering monuments have all sorts of additions and variations built into them over time that reflect the teaching mission of the Church. Late medieval stained glass, baroque altars, modernist stations of the cross, contemporary speaker systems, all reside in the same early gothic cathedral. This is why one will never find, or expect to find, a "pure" gothic cathedral. For they are a part of a living Christian community. A community that travels through history and transmits the gospel through the changing periods of that history in different ways. 

Yet it really is better expressed by the man, St. Thomas More in 1528:

"...We are not assured, by any promise made, that scripture will endure to the world's end, albeit I truly think the substance will. But yet, as I say, We have no promise about it. For where our Lord says that his words will not pass away, nor one iota therof be lost, he is speaking of his promises made, indeed, as his faith and doctrine were taught: by mouth and inspiration. He did not mean that of Holy Scripture in writing there would never be lost one iota. Of that, some parts are already lost; more, perhaps, than we know of. And of that we have books in some part corrupted, through miscopying. And yet the substance of these words, what he meant, is known, even where some part of what was written is unknown. He says also that his Father and he will send the Holy Spirit, and also that he himself will come. To what end, all this, if he meant nothing more than that they would leave the books behind and go their way?" (p.142) Dialogue Concerning Heresies

Thus, Ehrman's miscopyings, variations, and additions are not previously unknown, but easily answered. This is why the council of Carthage that finalized the canon of Scripture, and then the Council of Trent  that closed it to addition, didn't make one change to the documents contained in the New Testament. We are to believe giants of intellect like St. Augustine, and St. Robert Bellarmine, and all those before and between, didn't notice differences in the presentation of the texts? Of course they did. It was because of the honesty and teaching nature of the scriptures, and the very nature of the Church, and these Doctors participating in it, that theses biographies were left completely unchanged. This is the beauty of our Catholic Faith that makes us so reasonable in our religion.