Continued Discussion With Lnc

[LNC]

Um, you claim Ehrman has the originals right here

So, although the changes appear, he and other scholars are confident that they know where they appear and which were the originals, otherwise he wouldn't have much to write about in his books. So, I am confident that we can know what was in the originals.

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression, but I meant that they know what were the original words. I don't say that they had the original documents as I know that we don't. As you see in my last statement I say, "So, I am confident that we can know what was in the originals." If I believed we had the originals that statement wouldn't make sense as having the originals, it would be quite obvious that we would know what was in them. But that is not what I am saying here.

[Neon Genesis]

\

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression, but I meant that they know what were the original words. I don't say that they had the original documents as I know that we don't. As you see in my last statement I say, "So, I am confident that we can know what was in the originals." If I believed we had the originals that statement wouldn't make sense as having the originals, it would be quite obvious that we would know what was in them. But that is not what I am saying here.

But your argument still doesn't make sense. Just because we can reconstruct hypothetically what the originals were does not mean that you can just call checkmate and say we already know what the original words of God are without the originals.

[LNC]

It is you who is missing Ehrman's point. The point Ehrman is arguging is not that no key Christian doctrine is affected by the variants. He says you can use other verses to argue Christian doctrines but the changes DO matter because they completely change the meaning of the texts. One example he uses is when some variants of Luke omit the verses that say Jesus bled when he was at the garden completely change Luke's portrayal of Jesus. Whether it effects Christian doctrine or not, it is clearly a major change as it gives you a completely different perspective of Jesus' character and to claim Luke is the "great" historian" or that there is no mythology in the gospels when the variants don't agree on whether or not Jesus suffered in the garden is ridiculous.

 

How does this change in Luke completely change Luke's portrayal of Jesus? How does this give a completely different perspective of Jesus's character? I am curious how this changes so much of our understanding of Jesus. I am actually surprised that of all of the variants that Ehrman discusses that you would pick this one to emphasize as his argument is really weak on this one and it really has no major bearing on our view of Jesus if his reading is correct. Maybe you could tell me why this one pops out as being so important to you.

[Neon Genesis]

 

How does this change in Luke completely change Luke's portrayal of Jesus?

I don't know why I should bother. Every time I bring up a variant or a bible verse that there's no evidence for, you say you don't need that part of the bible anyway. For someone who claims to believe in the historical accuracy of the great historian Luke, you seem to have such little respect for all these scriptures you keep discarding as being unimportant.

[Mriana]

If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original.

 

Proper reading? And that would be what? You're interpretation? You're dogmatic ideology of what they say? IMHO, that is not a proper reading of religious texts. That is a bias, twisted view of religious text, in particularly Xian texts. You do realize there were other denominations of Xianity before "canon" as created by humans that were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought.

 

Apparently, you are not aware of the methods of textual criticism that are used to determine the best reading of the variants. It should have nothing to do with personal biases; however, I think that Ehrman has been caught on this a few times. BTW, denominationalism has nothing to do with textual criticism either. You apparently are not familiar with church history either. But maybe you could enlighten me as to what those denominations were that existed before the NT canon was established and point me to your historical evidence showing that people were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought. BTW, The Da Vinci Code does not count as historical evidence - it is fiction.

 

Religious criticism. That is the textual criticism I use. I esp like to read The Journal of Higher Criticism, CSER, and alike journals. I am subscribed to some of them. I think proper depends on one's POV.

[LNC]

But your argument still doesn't make sense. Just because we can reconstruct hypothetically what the originals were does not mean that you can just call checkmate and say we already know what the original words of God are without the originals.

 

It is not me who makes this argument. Ehrman himself argues that we can get back to what was in the originals with a high degree of certainty in most cases and that where we cannot decide between variants, it does not change the doctrine as we can get there from other passages and verses. We don't need the original documents in the study of ancient manuscripts to get back to the original words. That is what textual criticism does for us. That is also the misrepresentation that Ehrman puts out in MJ that he wouldn't dare try to pull off in a scholarly work, it would not hold up under peer review.

[Ouroboros]

Apparently, you are not aware of the methods of textual criticism that are used to determine the best reading of the variants. It should have nothing to do with personal biases; however, I think that Ehrman has been caught on this a few times.

You think? Are you a scholar? Do you have a degree in history or textual criticism?

 

So far this is what I hear: LNC is best, LNC is great, LNC knows everything, and anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as LNC are wrong.

 

 

BTW, denominationalism has nothing to do with textual criticism either. You apparently are not familiar with church history either. But maybe you could enlighten me as to what those denominations were that existed before the NT canon was established and point me to your historical evidence showing that people were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought. BTW, The Da Vinci Code does not count as historical evidence - it is fiction.

London and Paris is mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, so it must be true.

 

Are you claiming that Paul was wrong when he talked about the "false teachers" etc, and that historians have concluded that there were alternative versions of Christianity before canon was established?

 

Oh, I see. It doesn't fit you, therefore they are wrong.

 

Obviously you're not familiar with church history either, neither textual criticism, since you are so far out on the left side with half of what you're saying and then claiming that scholars and historians are wrong, only because "you think so."

[agnosticator]

Listen, I am willing to discuss your experiences and to test them against the evidence, as I am doing with mine here.

 

If you're talking about our-yours and my-personal experiences, it is better to keep them to ourselves. I'm sure you have examined them for yourself, as I have mine. If I knew you "in real life" it would be ok, though.

 

I think we all need to test our assumptions to see if they hold up under scrutiny. We are all on a quest for truth and not after blind leaps of faith as you seem to think.....I prefer to speak of my convictions rather than faith as faith is a loaded term that skeptics seem to think only applies to religious people, when in fact, it applies to all of us to one degree or another.

 

What I mean by "faith" is the narrow religious term, which refers to an "unquestioning belief that doesn't require proof or evidence": the new testament view of god and salvation by faith, as Paul sees it. We don't know god as we do other people, so we take the leap of faith. The "glass is dark" and faith is blind. You may believe otherwise.

 

A strong belief or conviction can be based upon faith, but it is belief in the supernatural, not knowledge of it. Where does the new testament say that evidence is required and vital to faith? And I am not referring to "evidence of things not seen". Faith believes that which is "not seen" without being provable.

 

Jesus is not here for us to put our hands in the open wound in his side, nor to fly us up into the clouds. That evidence would convince HanSolo and myself. Even then, god would have alot of explaining to do about the amount of suffering that has happened over time. I think a god that was pantheistic/panentheistic or something similar would be more believable. Suffering and imperfection may have been unavoidable or a byproduct of making life possible with this type of god. This god would not require us to obey it or repent to for being born human.

[Ouroboros]

The fact that somehow you believe that God has to be your thoughts rather than trying to figure out how you might be putting false expectations on God and then getting frustrated when he doesn't meet them.

For God to talk to his most precious creation is putting false expectations of God? So, basically, you are saying: believe just because LNC says so. Why should I believe in your God? Give me one reason. Obviously God talks to you but not to me. So why is that? Ask him.

 

So, you are saying that your previous Christian convictions were not based on evidence to begin with?

That's right. It was based on emotions and socialization.

 

What kind of sign were you looking for? What kind of sign would have convinced you?

Seriously, I don't know. But God can do anything, and he knows everything, and he knows why I don't believe, so he should be able to figure something out. Hey, didn't he create the universe? Oh, that was a piece of cake compared to figure out some way of proving himself to me.

 

Ah, I know. I have to believe WITHOUT proof or evidence, just like you. No way, you believe because you have evidence and not just blind faith. But nothing of what you have said have convinced me, because they're just words and stories. Just fantasies in your mind won't change my life.

 

Again, I ask what kind of sign would convince you?

Something that would have been out of the ordinary and miraculous. If I had seen a finger hovering in the air, writing text on the clouds in fire, and people around me seeing it too. I don't know. God would know.

 

Wait, there's an alternative. God could have spoken to me and told me all the arguments based on logic and science to prove that he existed, instead of sending YOU. Besides, your arguments are consistently flawed, so they don't really help, but rather keep on supporting my unbelief. So give some argument that holds water, instead of those half-ass Peter Pan stories.

 

Again, what kind of sign specifically did you ask for?

See above. God would know. But God doesn't know, because God doesn't use his brain, because he doesn't have one.

 

 

See what you did? It's called a cop-out. You are afraid to think of the possibility. Instead of answering my question, you redirect it.

 

No, you set up a false analogy. OK, let me play your game. If I was convinced that the resurrection was made up, I would have to abandon Christianity. If that part of the Bible was proved to not be original and I knew that the story was made up, it would make Christianity false. However, that is not the case in reality.

False analogy? It wasn't a false analogy at all, because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was a hypothetical question. Big difference to an analogy.

 

But thanks for the answer. You're telling me you would have to leave Christianity if the original text excluded the resurrection, which means, your whole belief is based on a few small pieces of text. Nothing else. You have no experience of God to prove you beyond the text. You have no other evidence except a few pieces of text you believe to be true. That's all... So why is it worth anything now? A piece of text is your God?

 

And also, you do know that Ehrman also states: "Making these decisions is obviously a complicated business; as a result, there are numerous places of textual variation where scholars continue to disagree concerning the 'original' form of the text."

 

It doesn't sound too clear yet which version of the "100%" is the accurate one, if the scholars disagree.

 

I am aware of that and both he and others make cases for the best reading of the variant. However, in those cases where there is a lack of a high degree of certainty over the variant, no core doctrines of Christianity are involved. In other words, the variant could be read either way and nothing would change in the core meaning to Christianity. This is the case with those variants that Ehrman points to in Misquoting Jesus.

I see. So the parts that supports belief are part of the 100% original, because that's what they agree upon, and those parts which they don't agree upon are not part of the faith. Did I get that right?

[Ouroboros]

That is a good one, but I guess I am not too convinced by the multiverse hypothesis either (but let's not open up that can of worms here ).

This universe + Heaven + Hell + God's throne + the other 7 (or was it three?) Paul talked about going through = many universes, in other words, a multiverse... which you don't believe in. Interesting.

 

So basically you are telling us that Heaven and Hell and God, everything, exists within this Universe?

[Ouroboros]

I walked in the sand, and Jesus walked next to me. Then I discovered that Jesus didn't leave any footprints, and I asked why. He told me, "because I'm only in your imagination."

 

It is funny that so many historians and scholars believe that he was more than an imaginary figure.

Lets sort this out:

 

There is a difference between believing that Jesus was a historical character, a person, a human (not God), who said things, and people started a religion from.

 

Another thing is to believe Jesus to be alive today and being the son of God, talking in your head, and walking next to you.

 

So many historians and scholars believe Jesus existed as a human being in history.

 

But it's funny, that there are so many historians and scholars who DO NOT believe Jesus to be the Son of God or a spirit talking in their heads!!!

 

So, in other words, as usual, you mix up different concepts to misrepresent the issue. It would help our discussion if you stayed honest, but since you can't, it's impossible to have a reasonable argument with you.

[mwc]

I don't know why I should bother. Every time I bring up a variant or a bible verse that there's no evidence for, you say you don't need that part of the bible anyway. For someone who claims to believe in the historical accuracy of the great historian Luke, you seem to have such little respect for all these scriptures you keep discarding as being unimportant.

I saw the response you got from LNC and it made me think of an article I came across on some recent reading. I'll post a couple of bits here for you:

The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri: "Not without Honor except in Their Hometown"?

Author(s): Eldon Jay Epp

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 5-55

Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature

 

Naturally, textual critics will continue their tradition of establishing the earliest or most likely "original" text, though now we use such a term, if we use it at all, with caution and even with reluctance, recognizing that "original text" carries several dimensions of meaning.3 [p.6]

 

3 See Eldon Jay Epp, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism," HTR 92 (1999): 245-81.

Fortunately for us we don't need to subscribe to that Harvard Theologic Review to see the article in the footnote. Just go here. About 1/4 of the way in you'll see Ehrman's (among others) view of "originals" presented. Also you'll see this in the conclusion:

 

As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament -- or even a text as close as possible to that original -- was achievable. Now, however, reality and maturity require that textual criticism face unsettling facts, chief among them that the term "original" has exploded into a complex and highly unmanageable multivalent entity. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena.

 

Anyway, back to the first source:

One dramatic presentation was Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, a work so well known that I need only summarize his main point: During the christological controversies of the first three centuries, "proto-orthodox scribes," as he calls them, "sometimes changed their scriptural texts to make them say what they were already known to mean."5 Hence, they "corrupted" their texts to maintain "correct" doctrine. Much earlier, textual critics had been willing to attribute such arrogance only to heretics, but Ehrman boldly and correctly turned this on its head. Though startling and unexpected, his thesis, as he recognized, issued quite naturally from text-critical developments of the preceding four decades.6 [p.6]

Also:

David Parker, whose small volume is at risk of being overlooked owing to its simple yet signif- icant title, The Living Text of the Gospels,7 confronted the problem head-on, with fascinating results.

For instance, the six main variant forms of the so-called Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke show the evolution of this pericope under liturgical influence. This is well known, but my description of it is much too detached. What obviously happened, of course, was that the fervent, dynamic worship environ- ment in early churches at various times and places evoked appropriate expansions of the shorter and certainly earlier forms that we print in our Greek texts of Matthew and Luke, including additional clauses such as "Your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us," but especially the lofty praise of the Almighty and Eternal God offered with grandeur and dignity and beauty in the famous doxology, "For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours forever and ever. Amen" [additions to Matt 6:13]. Once hearing the variants of these six forms and reciting them again and again, "... they will be a part of the way in which we read and interpret the Lord's Prayer," says Parker, and "we shall not be able to erase them from our minds, and to read a single original text as though the others had never existed."8 [p.7]

...

"The main result of this survey," says Parker, "is to show that the recovery of a single original saying of Jesus is impossible." Nor can we say that one variant is more original than the others, he adds, for "what we have is a collection of interpretative rewritings of a tradition."10 Indeed, in the early centuries of Christianity, the collection of writings that was to become or had become the NT was not a closed book, but-through textual variation-to quote Parker again, "it is open, and successive generations write on its pages."l [p.8]

Finally I'll just end with this (since the paper goes into its main topic):

What do multiple variants without resolution about originality mean for textual criticism and for us today? On the one hand, we are permitted to glimpse something of the creative dynamism and eloquent expansiveness of early Christian liturgy as new expressions evolved within the Lord's Prayer, and, in the divorce/remarriage morass, a window is opened for us to observe and to experience with early Christians over wide areas and lengthy periods the pathos and the agonizing, intractable ethical dilemmas that they faced. On the other hand, multiple variants, with no single original or simple resolution within grasp, can show us the way for our own times: there is no one right path or answer, no single directive, but the multiple variants reveal an array of differing situations, leaving open multiple options for us as well. In such cases, to quote Parker a final time, "the People of God have to make up their own minds. There is no authoritative text to provide a short-cut."12 [p.8]

Anyhow, I think this sheds a little light on things. It probably won't help any but like I said it came to mind when I read all this.

 

mwc

[mwc]

That's right. It was based on emotions and socialization.

Oh, poor Hans.

 

Now I believed because I examined the evidence as written by apologists and they confirmed to me that the bible was absolutely true. But more than that I believed because I came to realize that the evidence supported, and let me be clear on this, that the apostles of "jesus" actually appeared to believe that "jesus" had come back from the dead and as a result they gave their very lives (according to tradition) telling others that they believed that he had come back from the dead.

 

Can you imagine? Someone believing that something happened and telling others that this something happened? Even (according to tradition) giving up their lives? Wow. That's almost like saying that something actually DID happen and telling others but instead you tell them that you THINK it MAY HAVE happened. It's really, really close to being the same thing when you don't think about it.

 

Someday maybe even you will come to think something may have happened, tell others about it and at some point in the future people will come to tell stories about how you were killed as a result of it all. I can only hope.

 

mwc

[agnosticator]

That is a good one, but I guess I am not too convinced by the multiverse hypothesis either (but let's not open up that can of worms here ).

This universe + Heaven + Hell + God's throne + the other 7 (or was it three?) Paul talked about going through = many universes, in other words, a multiverse... which you don't believe in. Interesting.

 

Ah, so option 3)God moved to another universe, is true! But which one? I hope it isn't hell, because that would spoil satan's fun.

 

So basically you are telling us that Heaven and Hell and God, everything, exists within this Universe?

 

Yes, heaven is a paid vacation, god is mammon, and hell is listening to christian sermonizing.

[agnosticator]

So, you are saying that your previous Christian convictions were not based on evidence to begin with?

 

That's right. It was based on emotions and socialization.

 

I don't quite get where "faith" fits in with LNC's christian beliefs. He seems to think his "conviction" is based upon evidence and not "faith" (i.e.,belief regardless of evidence). So, what evidence convinced him? I don't see it. Or maybe it is his own reasoning mixed with desire?

[Ouroboros]

I don't quite get where "faith" fits in with LNC's christian beliefs. He seems to think his "conviction" is based upon evidence and not "faith" (i.e.,belief regardless of evidence). So, what evidence convinced him? I don't see it. Or maybe it is his own reasoning mixed with desire?

What LNC is doing is rationalization. Rationalization, in the sense of: a person having a certain belief (of various reasons) and try to make a rational reason to why they believe. In other words, because LNC is emotionally attached to the idea of God and Christianity to be true, and because he wants to make sense out of it(even though it doesn't), he tries really, really hard to find logical arguments and evidence for his belief, and now when he thinks he's found them, he's visiting us and insisting that we grab on to these same arguments and somehow he hope it will convert us, and put us into the same emotional position he has; reversing the actual process (reason->emotion, instead of emotion->reason). It won't work, but he doesn't get it, because he doesn't really understand that underlying reasons to his own belief.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, poor Hans.

...

Someday maybe even you will come to think something may have happened, tell others about it and at some point in the future people will come to tell stories about how you were killed as a result of it all. I can only hope.

Isn't it fascinating? I have been challenged several times with: "But it could be true." As in, "just because there isn't evidence for such-and-such, it doesn't mean it didn't happen." But at the same time if I say, "this could have happened." Then I get the response, "but there's no evidence for it, so it didn't happen." It all boils down to this argument:

 

1) I can't prove God does not exist.

2) It is then possible that God could exist.

3) Since God could possibly exist, then God is likely to exist

4) Because God is likely to exist, God must exist

5) Therefore God exists.

 

Argument from ignorance. And why? Why does people think this way? Not because it's logic, but because they want to. Why do they want to? Because of fear, hope, social learning, tradition, etc. In other words, mostly emotions and influence.

 

Thanks for all the article quotes about the Bible original. It sounds like they're heading for multiple "originals" rather than just one. Right?

[Mriana]

That is a good one, but I guess I am not too convinced by the multiverse hypothesis either (but let's not open up that can of worms here ).

This universe + Heaven + Hell + God's throne + the other 7 (or was it three?) Paul talked about going through = many universes, in other words, a multiverse... which you don't believe in. Interesting.

 

So basically you are telling us that Heaven and Hell and God, everything, exists within this Universe?

 

Well Norse mythology has a 7-tier universe and the way I see it, Xians have a 3-tier universe. It does sound like that is what she is saying.

[NonXNonExX]

LNC, i hope you'll indulge me for just a second to ask you a question that's entirely off topic, but it's been on my mind for some time now. I notice you use the Chinese symbol for true or truth. Does that have anything to do with the interpretation of that character as it was explained to me by a Chinese Xtian, i.e. the cross on top, the gravestone with three names on it and the symbol for a person below?

[agnosticator]

I don't quite get where "faith" fits in with LNC's christian beliefs. He seems to think his "conviction" is based upon evidence and not "faith" (i.e.,belief regardless of evidence). So, what evidence convinced him? I don't see it. Or maybe it is his own reasoning mixed with desire?

What LNC is doing is rationalization. Rationalization, in the sense of: a person having a certain belief (of various reasons) and try to make a rational reason to why they believe. In other words, because LNC is emotionally attached to the idea of God and Christianity to be true, and because he wants to make sense out of it(even though it doesn't), he tries really, really hard to find logical arguments and evidence for his belief, and now when he thinks he's found them, he's visiting us and insisting that we grab on to these same arguments and somehow he hope it will convert us, and put us into the same emotional position he has; reversing the actual process (reason->emotion, instead of emotion->reason). It won't work, but he doesn't get it, because he doesn't really understand that underlying reasons to his own belief.

 

I see what you're saying, Hans. When I was a christian, I didn't realize why I believed what I believed until questions began to pop up. I never did see much evidence in all those christian books I read in attempting to answer those questions. I also didn't find what christians believe about loss of faith to be true: That I would feel lost and empty without the relationship and the beliefs.

 

Maybe LNC fears there is an abyss beyond belief? Or as you say, he doesn't understand the underlying reasons of his beliefs.

[Ouroboros]

Well Norse mythology has a 7-tier universe and the way I see it, Xians have a 3-tier universe. It does sound like that is what she is saying.

Right. Which means that even Christian must believe there are more than "one" universe, and if we talk about three or more, we're talking about several, in other words "multi" is an accurate use of the word, and multi-universe is totally accurate and consistent with the Christian belief as well as scientific. Which means, LNC refusing to believe in a multi-universe (multiverse) is paradoxical. He believe in heaven and hell, but he doesn't believe it to exist in this universe, and at the same time, he doesn't believe them to exist in another universe either...

[oddbird1963]

Well Norse mythology has a 7-tier universe and the way I see it, Xians have a 3-tier universe. It does sound like that is what she is saying.

Right. Which means that even Christian must believe there are more than "one" universe, and if we talk about three or more, we're talking about several, in other words "multi" is an accurate use of the word, and multi-universe is totally accurate and consistent with the Christian belief as well as scientific. Which means, LNC refusing to believe in a multi-universe (multiverse) is paradoxical. He believe in heaven and hell, but he doesn't believe it to exist in this universe, and at the same time, he doesn't believe them to exist in another universe either...

 

 

Unless there is another logical alternative, that makes LNC an implicit annihilationist. Nothing exists outside of this universe - there is no heaven or hell. You go nowhere when you die.

[Ouroboros]

Unless there is another logical alternative, that makes LNC an implicit annihilationist. Nothing exists outside of this universe - there is no heaven or hell. You go nowhere when you die.

Which he doesn't. He has stated quite clearly that he believes in a Heaven, Hell, afterlife, etc. And that God is not of this world. I can't make out what he really means. On one side God is outside time and space, but God isn't in a different universe. And after we die, we become that same thing, some kind of existence in a non-existing void? This needs an explanation.

[Mriana]

Yes, it most certainly does, because once again, like many Xians, he makes no sense.

[Neon Genesis]

 

It is not me who makes this argument. Ehrman himself argues that we can get back to what was in the originals with a high degree of certainty in most cases and that where we cannot decide between variants, it does not change the doctrine as we can get there from other passages and verses. We don't need the original documents in the study of ancient manuscripts to get back to the original words. That is what textual criticism does for us. That is also the misrepresentation that Ehrman puts out in MJ that he wouldn't dare try to pull off in a scholarly work, it would not hold up under peer review.

Again, here is what Ehrman says about how much the variants effects Christian doctrine since you apparently didn't read this quote the first time I posted it and I'll even bold it for you this time so you won't miss it.

The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that's true.

 

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret the passages of the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages. From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke's Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ's death atones for sins)? Does John's Gospel teach that Christ is the "unique God" himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.

Now where in any of this does Ehrman say these variants do not affect Christianity at all like you claim he says?