Evidence · Case 03 · Reliability of Scripture
Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace agree on the data
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Ehrman, who uses the variants to argue for uncertainty, and Wallace, who argues the opposite, agree on the basic facts: the number is large because the manuscript pool is large, and most variants are trivial. They disagree over how many meaningful and viable variants remain and what follows. Their published debate is a good place to see both the shared data and the real dispute.
Sources
- Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace, “The Reliability of the New Testament” (Fortress, 2011). (opens in a new tab)
A debate in print where both sides state the shared data.
Objections & responses
- Ehrman’s point is that we cannot know the original wording where it matters. Doesn’t the sheer number of variants mean the text is uncertain exactly where it counts?
Ehrman’s own textbook, the standard one in the field, says the number of variants that are both meaningful and viable is small and that the essentials are not in doubt. The places that matter most, where a teaching could hinge, are few and are discussed openly in the footnotes of any modern Bible. Uncertainty about whether a verse reads Lord or Lord Jesus is real, and it is not the same as uncertainty about what the New Testament teaches.