I usually attempt to stay out of debates among students in the Daily. However, readers should realize that some of Mr. Mark Herman’s corrections, in his July 8 response to an earlier reader’s letter, are themselves in need of correction.

Mr. Herman cites a well-known apologetics manual by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks (“When Skeptics Ask,” pages 158159) to correct the statement that the Bible has been rewritten many times, and so subject to human manipulation and error. According to Geisler and Brooks, biblical manuscripts “agree to a great extent,” and so can be regarded as historically reliable.

This sort of claim by Geisler and Brooks is quite shocking to those of us who have actually worked with authentic biblical manuscripts. For example, note what F. M. Cross, one of the original members of the Dead Sea Scrolls international team, says: “In the medieval Hebrew manuscripts there are hundreds, even thousands of differences, mostly minor, rarely major. In the old versions, especially in the Old Greek version (which was written beginning in the third century B.C. and is commonly called the Septuagint) there are thousands of variants, many minor, but also many major” (Bible Review, Summer 1983, p.13).

Another point is that we do not possess the original manuscripts of any biblical book. We have only often variant copies. Geisler knows this and tells us in another of his books (“When Critics Ask,” p. 23) that only the originals are inerrant, but not the copies. But since we do not have the original biblical texts, such claims are not based on any empirical evidence.

In any event, whatever side of an argument we espouse, it is necessary to go beyond citing apologetics manuals to establish our positions. Students should eventually become acquainted with the primary sources as much as possible.

Hector Avalos, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Religious Studies