Many Christians are satisfied with the claim that if all the Biblical manuscripts did not exist, they could rely on Church fathers to reconstruct the Bible.
Now we have already shown that even if we take the assertion that the Church fathers and their quotations can be trusted both as a source of knowledge,(and their authenticity) , we still wont be able to get a Bible until the fourth century
An upcoming post, will question the authenticity of the Church Fathers writings themselves, and can they rightly be attributed to their respective authors.
This post, however, will assume for the sake of argument that these writings are authentic to their respective author. But it will question whether we can rely on such authors to quote the Bible.
Many evangelical Christian apologists use an argument attributed to the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, which goes as follows:
We can almost completely restore the New Testament off of the early church fathers alone.
This argument posits that based on the writings of the early Church Fathers (Patristics), in their quotations, we can use those quotations of the New Testament to reconstruct the entire New Testament. However, as Dr. Dan Wallace clarifies, this is not a claim he makes, and he specifically qualifies that although such a reconstruction can be done, it cannot be done using the early Patristics:
As Dr. Ehrman points out, this cannot be done using the early Patristic writings (1st to 3rd centuries). Unfortunately, this is quite a popular argument used by Christian apologists, and it’s long overdue that either Dr. Wallace or Dr. Ehrman corrected lay…
View original post 15 more words