HTML Image
Posted on 02/09/2026 10:07:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Bart Ehrman, a noted biblical studies professor at UNC Chapel Hill, announced his retirement on December 7, 2025, after more than 40 years in the classroom. Although he was educated at Princeton under the guidance of conservative theologian Bruce Metzger, Ehrman “de-converted” from Christianity and has written a number of books aimed at poking holes in the truth claims of Christianity and especially the reliability of the biblical text.
Ehrman used his last lecture to again hammer away at the idea that we really don’t know and can’t trust what the Bible says. He claims there are so many “variants” (i.e., differences) in the many biblical manuscripts we have that we’re unable to know what the original books of the Bible said.
During his farewell lecture, Ehrman stated that after the original biblical authors wrote their books,
“Then, after a while, somebody wanted a copy of it, right? And so, somebody made a copy of it. And then somebody copied the copy, and then somebody copied the copy of the copy, and then somebody copied the copy of the copy of the copy. And it went on like that, it went on like that for centuries … And so, you don’t have originals. You’ve got later copies. The problem is that scribes make mistakes…Today we know of over 5,800 manuscripts. How many variants do we know about? And the recent estimates are around 500,000. So, most of them don’t matter, but some of them matter a lot. Some of them actually change what a verse means, or what a chapter means, or what a book means. Sometimes they change the theology of the whole thing.”
Is that true? Are these manuscript differences mentioned by Ehrman so pronounced that we don’t know what the books of the Bible originally said and meant?
Actually, no. Let me explain why.
What’s a variant?
In his book Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman says there are “more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” And he’s correct.
However, to quote the movie “The Princess Bride,” that doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Ehrman’s claim is a partial truth, which leads to many people thinking the veracity of the biblical text is in doubt. The number of variants is large because, for example, one difference of one letter of one word in one verse in say, 2,000 manuscripts, counts as 2,000 variants (and there are nearly 6,000 manuscripts to compare).
But, as Ehrman admits in his farewell lecture, “most of them don’t matter.” The overwhelming majority of variants consist of spelling and numerical differences, sentence word order changes, etc. Thus, scholars have concluded that the New Testament text is 99% pure, with there being only 1% of the text that contains any “meaningful” variants.
OK, but what about that 1%? Is Ehrman right when he claims, “Some of them actually change what a verse means, or what a chapter means, or what a book means. Sometimes they change the theology of the whole thing”?
No.
Let me give you an example of a “meaningful” variant. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul describes himself either as “gentle” or as “little children,” with there being a one-letter discrepancy with the Greek terms used in the differing manuscripts (epioi vs. nepioi).
That’s a “meaningful” variant.
Can I get a show of hands out there of those whose faith has just been shipwrecked and you’re now bailing on Jesus? No one? Didn’t think so.
In no way are you going to find one book saying Jesus rose from the dead and another one claiming He didn’t; one saying you have to earn your way to Heaven and another saying it’s by grace alone. And so on.
And here’s the thing — Ehrman knows this.
Years ago, Ehrman was interviewed on a Lutheran radio show and was asked point-blank about whether biblical variants equate to us being in the dark about what the New Testament actually says and means. William Lane Craig sums up the conversation this way:
“The interviewer said to Dr. Ehrman, ‘What do you think the original text of the New Testament actually said?’ And Ehrman replied, ‘Well, what do you mean?’ The interviewer said, ‘There have been all these variants, all these changes that have been introduced. What did the original say?’ Bart said, ‘It said pretty much what our Bibles today say.’ The interviewer said, ‘I am confused. I thought there were all these copyist errors.’ Ehrman said, ‘Oh, well yeah, but we have been able to reconstruct the text, so that we know what the original says.’”
And what does this admission mean for you?
It signifies that you are free to declare you don’t believe what the Bible claims — e.g., you think that Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead — but you can’t cast doubt on what the Bible says and means. Through the science of biblical criticism, we have what the biblical authors wrote, with the few attempts at additions/modifications being identified and well known (and none changing the theology of the text).
It's disappointing to see someone like Ehrman who is capable of doing so much good for Christianity (for example, his defense regarding the historicity of Jesus in his book, Did Jesus Exist?) be used as a mouthpiece by the enemy to repeat his question in the Garden: “Indeed, has God said?” (Gen. 3:1). Keep up the prayers for Bart everyone and let’s hope he comes to Christ in the near future.
Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master's in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.
Dr. Ehrman discovered two things very early on: that there is 1) much to be gained by notoriety and 2) there are many itching ears out there.
Is he smart and well educated? To be sure. Is he wise and true? Not so much.
So, happy retirement, Bart. It will become less happy as you age.
But what was the real purpose. And was it truly worth it?
As you stated, some folks will thrive on playing the role of the contrarian, the odd man out, the “rebel”, if you will.
The simplest reason would be for all the attention and reaction their views may inspire.
For such people, good or bad attention, doesn’t matter. It’s all the same currency.
Usually such people have been this way for most of their lives, starting with their beleaguered parents.
The book of Genesis was written by Moses 2000 years after Adam and Eve.
Smart and well-educated, or smug and slickly-spoken?
Bart Ehrman is a CINO. His books are a cruel joke.
I suppose there will be come a time he will wish he had chosen differently.
He was a Christian, I forget when he left the faith. Every time I watched and listened to him debate against Christianity, I always got the feeling it was all an act. There was something about his demeanor when he would state truths about Christ and the Bible. A minute later he would say something so ridiculous that you thought he was another person. I hope he comes back to the Truth.
In the old times, every think was written by the hand.
Either one person looked at the original and wrote it down to the copy or somebody dictated to the group of writers.
No wonder few typos were introduced, and then often copied again.
Experts can trace these typos and quite often correct them.
But the message is clear and true.
Discarding the message, because few copyists made few typos thousand years ago is just evil.
Bart is an example of what the “tenure” mechanism buys the proffer of it. You can’t fire them, even when the dismissal would benefit both, and open the way for someone truly genuine to occupy a post at least for a while. A meritocracy is far better for all than an aristocracy, IMHO.
Ehrman is revoltingly dismissive of Holy Scripture.
He’s insufferable and likely reflexively darts inside at the first sign of thunder.
I can’t take an article seriously that labels Bruce Metzger as theologically conservative.
He was firmly in the Critical Text camp.
I don't know where the figure of 5800 manuscripts comes from. Maybe it is Hebrew manuscripts of a particular book. I read somewhere that there are 100,000 manuscripts of the Bible (that must include many that only have portions of the text).
No, don’t throw it away. It’s a reference.
This article is poorly written, as it doesn’t really address the manuscript issue in any detail.
There are two families of NT manuscripts, and one has 5-6000 known copies (The Textus Receptus), The other one has many fewer, and is mainly based on two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (Critical Text).
That’s all I’m going to say here. You can go down the rabbit hole on your own, if you like.
There’s plenty of information out there for the taking.
One example of discrepancies in the text is in Luke 2.14. Do the angels say en anthropois eudokias or en anthropois eudokia? One letter difference and both readings are supported by numerous manuscripts and quotations in the Church Fathers. The first would mean "among men of good will" and the other means "good will to men." ("Men" meaning "human beings," not male persons only.)
Hell awaits.
After reading King James back in the day, and other versions as they are published, and studying Hebrew and Greek words and the source of the manuscripts . . . , I have expanded my view from ‘one correct’ version to accdept and value the others.
I even am considering that the scribes and copyists and translaters are influenced by the Holy Spirit so that even a ‘misplaced’ letter or word order reversal, etc., are still The Word of God.
He will stand before the throne of the Almighty someday and will be silenced as he is judged for leading people away from God’s Word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.