Challenge 2: "The Bible's Portrait of Jesus Can't Be Trusted because the Church Tampered with the Text" An interview with Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

Jacobsen's canard against Wallace to begin is misdirected: Yet I noticed that Strobel didn't mention anything about Wallace knowing Aramaic or Hebrew. Perhaps Wallace has studied those some; I don't know. But I expect that Strobel would have noted it if Wallace did have any specific expertise in these languages, since, in Challenge 1, Evans stressed the importance of Bible scholars knowing Hebrew and Aramaic. Evans is clearly speaking within the context of scholars who study the historical Jesus and his setting. This is not Wallace's area of study; his specialty is textual criticism. In this specialty field it is not necessary for Wallace to know Hebrew or Aramaic. It seems that Jacobsen is simply looking for ways to insult a reputable scholar. It also does not, despite Jacobsen, give Ehrman any advantage over Wallace in the specific field of NT textual criticism.

Jacobsen: Christians don't accept that the original followers of any other religion are 100% truthful and reliable, but if I have similar doubts about Christianity then I'm committing some grievous crime worthy of eternal punishment? Jacobsen may spare us the emotional excess; it is very doubtful that his sin is limited to such simple matters as "doubts about Christianity." However, if he wishes to take a more mature heading, he can deal with our take on eternal punishment here.

Yes, Mr Jacobsen, going to "ultraconservative Christian schools" is a bad thing, or can be -- but more relevant to Ehrman, having an ultraconservative mind is (was) a bad thing. And they deserve to be addressed to Ehrman as well as the school he went to, though MBI actually doesn't teach as "ultraconservative" a view as Ehrman fell into.

Responding to Wallace's point about one error not spoiling the whole Bible as a source, any more than it would Josephus or Tacitus, Jacobsen says:

In one sense, this is exactly correct. If Josephus is found to be wrong about one detail, we don't then trash everything he says. But this isn't a good analogy, for Josephus isn't alleged to be the sole source of the straight scoop from God Himself on how to obtain eternal life! If I thought that there was the slightest possibility that Josephus had inside information on eternal salvation, I'd be pretty concerned about every possible error! If, however, I trust Josephus' report on something that Julius Caesar did, and he is wrong, the impact on me is negligible.

Jacobsen simply commits the same error that Wallace corrects. The point remains unchanged: One error does not spoil the whole, and each truth claim must be considered one at a time and evaluated. Jacobsen is, like Ehrman, behaving like a "fundy atheist" who cannot abandon his presuppositions that one error would destroy the whole and put it all under suspicion. (Indeed, his own testimomy shows that he suffered the same mental block that Ehrman did.) The subject matter is of no relevance to this point, and single errors do not warrant widespread paranoia.

It's a non sequitur to say that I can't trust the Bible in the minutiae of history, so therefore I can't trust it in matters of faith and practice. (p. 76)

In Strobel's earlier book, The Case for Christ, he argued that the Bible has been proven reliable in "the minutiae of history" and that is precisely why it can be trusted in matters of "faith and practice." But now he's saying, "Okay, so maybe it's not accurate in the minutiae of history, but you can still trust it in matters of faith and practice!" Well, which is it?

Apparently Jacobsen fails to see that while this matter can be argued positively, the negative form can not be. Rather, the matter becomes such as Wallace describes wherein claims must be treated and evaluated individually. Furthermore, like a typical fundamentalist, Jacobsen regards the matter in "all or nothing" terms when in fact he would need to evaluate the text in terms of each author (eg, an error in Galatians does not affect Luke) and without concern for scale (eg, if Luke has one error, but is right on everything else, his reliability is still very high).

Wallace is quoted:

A couple of pages later, the issue about whether or not the Gospels portray the exact words of Jesus arises again: Historians of that day were trying to accurately get the gist of what was said. For example, it would take you no more than two hours to say all of Jesus' words in the Gospels. Well, that's not a very long time to speak. It only takes fifteen minutes to get through the Sermon on the Mount--but when Jesus delivered his sermons, people were often hungry at the end. I don't think Jesus gave fifteen-minute sermonettes for Christianettes. So the Gospels contain a summary of what he said. And if it's a summary, maybe Matthew used some of his own words to condense it. That doesn't trouble me in the slightest. It's still trustworthy.

Jacobsen first refers back to his erroneous arguments in Part 1, already addressed. Then Jacobsen arbitrarily sets the bar high as he says, He used Matthew as an example. Nowhere in the Book of Matthew does it even claim to be a depiction of actual events, and yet Wallace somehow has this divine insight that it is indeed accurate. Wallace says nothing of the sort, and makes no "blanket statement"; he is addressing a claim that a certain way that Matthew presents matters can be regarded as inaccuracy. As for claiming to be a depicition of actual events: Matthew has written in the style of Greco-Roman biography, a form which says in and of itself, "I mean this to depict actual events."

Jacobsen complains: I did find Wallace's estimation that the Bible contains roughly two hours' worth of Jesus' speech very illuminating. He further estimates that Jesus often talked for hours, so Jesus presumably preached for hundreds or even thousands of hours. And all we have is a measly two hours. Allegedly, this is God Himself, speaking on issues that He must have felt important enough to address, uttering hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours of speeches -- and all we have is two hours! And the problem, other than that Jacobsen doesn't find himself sufficiently entertained, is what? Since he does not know what else Jesus may have said, this is an "argument" based on non-knowledge. As a typical ancient teacher, the greatest likelihood is that Jesus repeated the same message many times, and that in the Gospels, we have the essential core and are missing nothing of import. Perhaps Jesus delivered the same moral messages in different words; but to complain of a lack of the same core message would be foolish.

But to answer what little specifics he has: Imagine all the things we might know today if Jesus really was God and we had more of his words? Maybe we would know whether God really has a problem with abortion or not. That is already known; it is unquestionable that Jews of the first century universally disapproved of abortion, and this was not open to question at all. If Jacobsen had been a little less lazy and a little more into being a disciple, he would have found this out himself. Further: The Bible isn't even clear on the requirements of salvation. The Bible is very clear on this; Jacobsen has simply not studied at all.

We finally get to the matter of textual evidence, and Jacobsen barks at Wallace's heels, accusing him of being "misleading" in what says and offering to "straighten this mess out." In that he fails, because he misses the very critical point that Wallace's statistics for the NT must be viewed comparatively. Secular historians would give numerous limbs for the sort of evidence the NT has, which is far better than for any other document. Jacobsen is aware of this, but having no good answer, resorts to the neo-fundamentalist red herring that "holy books" must be held to a different standard -- for no other reason than that his own manufactured uncertainties demand it.

He claims, There are also large numbers of copies of the Buddhist Sutras and Islam's Koran, but Wallace doesn't mention that. Why ought he to mention it? Jacobsen does not provide us with any arguments to support this alleged need; perhaps he can enlighten us in ways that more detailed studies cannot.

Despite his claim, Wallace does not "inflate his numbers" by counting fragments. Fragments are normally included in manuscript counts for all ancient documents. Jacobsen apparently has the idea that a "manuscript" is defined as any FULL copy of a work, which is incorrect.

Wallace is quoted: Mark 9:29 could impact orthopraxy, which is right practice, but not orthodoxy, which is right belief. Here Jesus says you can't cast out a certain kind of demon except by prayer--and some manuscripts add "and fasting." So if "and fasting" is part of what Jesus said, then here's a textual variant that affects orthopraxy--is it necessary to fast to do certain kinds of exorcisms? But seriously, does my salvation depend on that? (p. 89)

Jacobsen finds himself "astonished" by this, somehow getting from the above "how thoughtless Wallace is in regards to the salvation of the allegedly possessed person," though how that is gotten to is likely a matter of imagination. Getting an exorcism done is not a matter of salvation, so we are not really talking about saving someone from damnation, Jacobsen's deficient soteriology notwithstanding. (Beyond this, as a preterist, I have no concern for demonic activity in the present and therefore nothing to be concerned about with respect to modern exorcism practice.)

After beating his own error into the ground on this for a while, Jacobsen again hauls in 1 Cor. 14:34-6 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14, which we addressed in the prior chapter. Jacobsen seems quite fond of being the windup monkey who clashes these cymbals together incessantly, but all he's doing is beating his empty hands together.

Jacobsen's analysis of the adultery pericope is far too simple. "We like it" is not the sole reason for authenticity. He is also oblivious to the defining factor in the story: Because Rome held capital power, the challenge to Jesus was the same as the one in which he was presented with the question of paying taxes to Caesar. Hence Jacobsen's appeal to the OT is irrelevant.

There's not much need to address Jacobsen's extended rant about alleged poor souls (like himself, we presume) who were/are too confused by textual issues. He apparently has no idea that there is no such thing as a "non-bodily resurrection." He also seems to think that all scribal changes were made with evil intent, but the only specific he offers has to do with the healed leper, and an issue we have answered (as has Wallace in a more depth report elsewhere):

Concerning the first text, a few ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41 while most others speak of him as having compassion. But in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry—wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. So it is hardly a revolutionary conclusion to see Jesus as angry elsewhere in this Gospel.

In addition, I have noted that Jesus' answer was perfectly justified:

The word "compassion" is sometimes rendered as meaning "angry" and it is supposed that the former is less embarrassing to Jesus. It isn't; Jesus had a perfect right to be perturbed. Jesus was preaching in sysnagogues and the man put him "on the spot" to get a healing. But this meant that Jesus would be seen as ritually impure; hence the admonition to say nothing, but the man gracelessly noised about the healing anyway, forcing Jesus to not be able to enter cities openly and continue his work (not because he was unclean in actuality, but because others would see him as so).

There is no evidence of evil intent by scribes here; the two words under consideration are so close in form that accidental transcription of the wrong word is the undoubted cause.