Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the Text of the NT?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Do we have enough evidence to reconstruct the New Testament text? Or did early scribes corrupt it beyond repair? Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM's Executive Director, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace debate the issue of if we can trust the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University on October 1, 2011. At the time, this was the largest attended debate on the text of the NT ever. Dr. Mark A. Chancey, Professor of Religious Studies at SMU, serves as MC. Though Ehrman and Wallace have held public debates in the past, this one focused on providing a general audience with insider information regarding one of the most significant pieces of literature ever written. If you are interested in the New Testament and its reliability, this is sure to be a debate you will not want to miss.
The program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Dr. Wallace, director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and New Testament Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has spent his life studying and digitizing ancient copies of the New Testament. He has authored and edited numerous books; most recently he has edited and contributed to Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. He asserts that we have good reason to believe that the New Testament text is reliable.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM Productions. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without the express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM Productions is strictly prohibited.
Debate actually starts at 8:22
Ur welcome 😎👉
People like you restore my faith in humanity.
Thank you.
43:00 - wallace starts
1:16:30 - Ehrman response
1:22:20 - wallace response
1:43:00 - Q&A
The first highlight of the debate.👍
You saved me time
Doing the lords work, thanks!
Wallace is surprisingly candid and plays no tricks, among Christians. He admitted all the facts and reached exact opposite conclusions.
The thing I learned is that people will believe what they want to believe not matter the evidence.
Exactly
You can't convince a man against his will.
You mean... most of the ignorant idiots who inhabit this planet. Some of us actually have honesty and humility ... did you know?
BUT THATS JUST IT THEY DONT WANT TO BELIEVE IT, BRAINWASHING MASS HYPNOSIS IS NOT THEM WANTING ANYTHING, THEY ARE BRAIN DEAD BOTS. SING THE SAME HYM OVER AND OVER AND OVER ITS LITERAL BRAIN PROGRAMMING
Yep.... well said
I REALLY wish they would’ve allowed for an actual back-and-forth dialogue between these two before the questions from the audience. I think that would’ve made this debate FAR more invigorating
with box gloves maybe ;)
@Abraham Mani really did you watch the debate they haven't got a clue and who cares about what some anonymous authors say where is the gospal of Jesus that is what the revaltion from God was I don't care what some random guys said who never even met Jesus said what is the narrative the firs gospal was written about 40 years after Jesus that's a estimate it could be much later imagine 40 years after world War 2 some random guys started telling you what happened would you except how can you put your faith in something what can lead you to eternal dambnation people are so gullible
Yes and bring up on the screen the exact books and quotes they quote of other people. So the audience and we actually see the written words by the author they are quoting. Then there is no question weather that person actually wrote what Bart and Daniel said that they wrote. That's a question I would ask if I was there.
The more Ive learned about the bible after becoming an atheist, the more I've come to realize how little I knew about it when I believed.
Lmao, right. I'm learning more now about the bible science and all types of things.. my kick now is watching muslims debate and tear apart their beliefs.
For me its the opposite of what you said.
It's fascinating how the pieces fit together, the possible origins of certain extra-biblical Christian beliefs and traditions, etc. by reading apocrypha and the ancient near East context!!
@@stephenburdess2914 it's out pleasure
Funny how God is working in your life. Enjoy learning and btw there is no such thing as atheist.
Dan and Bart are top notch scholars and, seemingly, great people. I've watched several of their debates and, each time, am left with the same impression, namely, that they're simple engaging in an apples and oranges discussion. Bart seeks certainty. Nothing short of the original texts or something close to them will satisfy him. Dan is dealing in probabilities based on extant evidence. It makes for a very informative discussion but one in which absolutely nothing is resolved.
I have to say, Wallace's opening remarks are easily done of the most charming and seemingly honest examples of debate I've ever seen from a Bible believer. Watching the rest now, but so far I actually like this Wallace guy, which is a very pleasant and welcome surprise
Did the people in the end watch the same debate as me?
No. They didn't listen to Erman at all. They went into the debate with their minds already made up, so they effectively ignored everything that didn't support their already established opinions.
It was like they dropped in after a WLC gallop in a neighboring auditorium.
@@dienekes4364 Lol, so are you guys.
Dienekes While I’m an atheist and fall somewhere between a history-ist and a mythist when it comes to Jesus, I think we all come into this with our “team”. It’s just how we are. So I think we need to be careful criticizing the opposing sides.
But I will say this: Wallace’s thinking that somehow things get better and more reliable when we get into a time where sources no longer exist...and that’s why we should believe into the reliability of New Testament...is odd. That seems backward thinking to me and is why I feel Erhman won this debate.
I watched from beginning to the end.
Bart was not impressive at all. I am not satisfied at all with Bart Ehrman arguments. His argument only: "I don't know... We don't know... We may not know..." But, he KNOWS surely the conclusion he built.
If he is consistent from the beginning to the end He doesn't know, maybe his book will not be best sellers. As he said in the beginning of the debate the title of "Misquoting Jesus" was not from him, but from publisher. It's really a pitty to trade our own integrity with money.
It seems I was watching a different debate than these folks at the end. None of Ehrman’s questions were solidly answered and Wallace simply insists that he’s comfortable assuming as correct what he admits he does not know. Typical.
R P G We don’t have the hard evidence we do have a lot of soft evidence...
It's like when Wallace says that "probably is on his side" while Ehrman says "we can't know" (for sure). It seems to me that these two statements mean the same thing -- and yet this was a sticking point in the debate.
R P G: That is a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Wallace’s position. He argued we do not have to have 100% certainty in order to have a high degree of confidence as to what the original text of the New Testament said. Big difference.
The bigger question to me, is, _how we know how good Mark's memory is_ , 20, 30 years after Jesus' death. And was he exposed to Jesus (no, right?), or, only early stories from those who were? I guess that's so big an unknown that it's much harder to fight about, though. Like looking for your keys under a lamppost.
Anthony Tyler thank you for confirming exactly what I wrote.
Dr. Ehrman, you are part of the reason why I have even a footing when interacting with Theists about the legitimate reasons for belief. I'm an Atheist, intellectually Agnostic, however educated about the scriptures. They are very impactful, and terrifying in their influence on otherwise decent communities. Hello, from South Carolina!
There is no way to tell....
Dapper Global, check out the Qur'an and give your commwnts
I remember being like the audience at the end. Pastors and apologists alike teach you to wave away and tune out arguments against the accuracy of the text, and it works. I remember genuinely not being phased when someone would make some of Ehrman’s arguments, and I felt like I was being intellectually honest. Just reminds me how feelings are terrible indicators of a correct position.
All religious apologists use the same strategy.
The Bible said it
I believe it
That settles it.
Not true at all, there are many reasons why we believe what we teach.
@@JamesRichardWiley Actually I have heard no apologist say that, but maybe I was lucky. the apologists I´ve listened to follow science and scholars, yes they bring forth things that supports the idea that the bible is likely more reliable than what other might try to render, but none of their arguments go as you claim "the bible said it". Does Wallace even once say here that the bible said it, therefore it´s true???? I doubt it. I think you quote an axiom.
@@danvaz72 Greed and pride ? lol....
@@PjotrII Depends on if heard an apologist from 21st century or the first apologists who clearly told you to shut the f$$k up and believe.... Oh the ever evolving art of controlling the idiots, when will you disappear? O_O
One of the most evident conclusions I could see, is that evidence does not matter to those that believe. Their desire to believe is more important than evidence.
When Wallace was talking about how there are more copies of the Bible than classical writings, all I could I hear was Matt Dillahunty's voice saying, "So what?"
There are more variations, the more copies you have. But the critical text of the scriptures still give an accurate explanation of early church prospective.
To be fair, the more copies there are, the easier it is to corroborate. Compare to other ancient texts, which all have far fewer manuscripts, unfortunately often from one. If a line is corrupted or a cluster of lines look suspect, the best scholars can do is guess what was originally there. I remember that could be a problem translating Plautus.
@@SirAnthonyChirpsALot "To be fair, the more copies there are, the easier it is to corroborate."
No, the easier it is to compare the different copies. Even if all the copies say the same thing, none of them have corroborated that what they say actually happened.
@@SirAnthonyChirpsALot
Except in the case of biblical sources these text copies are vastly different from each other on many critical issues and areas.
We are not talking about language translations and more modern day variences of versions of the same copied text. We are talking about the variations of all these older texts that are supposedly this inerrant word of a holy and righteous deity god. One that so many versions can't seem to agree upon so many simple areas.
Yes there are multitudes of these scriptural texts copied and rewritten and revised and interpreted and interpolated and reinterpreted and reinterpolated in dozens to hundreds of different ways on just about every subject and area to be discussed.
For the bible..for this religious text of a god deity who is claimed to not be the author of confusion...there is an awful lot of confusion.
This is simple to narrow down. That all these texts are either just writings of men from their own brains and imaginations..and thus why they a vary so greatly..and why we have no early true versions of original texts..because all these are the original texts and the all vary from writer to writer..
Or
This idealisms of being put forth by a god..is indeed so and this is a god that gave everything to each author on a different way compared to another. And that was according to how that person perceives this god. So it was in accordance to that god view..to each their own correctly given by that persons god.
But it still does jot account for it not showing confusion. If this god had purpose and intent to make sure there is no confusion..then it did a lousy job and could not influence or make it happen.
This I will leave the arguement upon. A god who supposedly could write the ten commandments on stone with his finger ..write down exactly why he wanted said.. can not influence for the rest of the textual writings about this religion and faith and historicity and what is to be given and said can not make it clear and precise and without confusion and division upon what is said and how it is said.
Makes no sense.. what does..it is just writings of men and their imaginations..nothing more..nothing less and that's all it ever has been and can be
In other words, I'll risk my soul and follow Bart to hell rather than believe in the Lord Jesus and go to heaven. Nice reasoning.
We need more Bart Ehrman
Rangel Luiz dos Santos
Why? , isn't your non belief sufficient for you?.
Rangel Luiz dos Santos More Richard Carrier as well...Scholarly and not pandering.
@@bobgriffith1810 because Christians want to dominate everyone's life in too many cases. Case in point - our current president and the republican party with a lot of Christian nationalists in it.
@@bobgriffith1810 *"Why? , isn't your non belief sufficient for you?."* - I don't want to sound rude, but this is incredibly silly. Ehrman is a skilled historian, linguist, and teacher, to touch on just a few of his qualifications. Would you respond to "we need more skilled historians" with "isn't one sufficient for you?"
@@beastshawnee4987 Hahahhahahahahah good one - Carrier - Scholarly
Can we all just appreciate that cut at 01:43:10 where someone went straight to the question? Whoever did that, thank you for saving me a minute or two, seriously that work is appreciated.
EDIT: the people at the end, they all said Wallace won the debate and answered the questions and overwhelming evidence? Umm...did we watch the same debate?
Even though I disagree with Dr. Ehrman's conclusion, I genuinely respect, and like this man a lot. Anti-Christian or not, his scholarship is so incredibly helpful for everyone wanting to learn about the textual transmission of the New Testament. He's quite humble too, and a great speaker with much clarity. I cannot help but always have a smile on my face whenever I hear Dr. Ehrman speak. I pray that the Lord will draw him back into fellowship some day.
listen to your reason. If this was the word of God why would God make it reasonable to reject His word via objective evidence?
He's not anti_Christian.
Wow, the closing bit with the audience feedback is a real lesson in confirmation bias.
MrTwostring, absolutely. Wallace was all but blown out of the water.
what made it biased though?
@@qitzpaquitojr.reston2337 its in black and white.... go actually look at the video
@@rpg896 It was obviously the other way around. Wallace killed Ehrman.
@@BrandonCarter469 k boomer
"Relatively certain" is a phrase I am not comfortable with. "Relatively confident" would be OK, but certainty can never be relative. #pedantry
1:52:29
There is at least one essential and glaringly obvious difference between classical writings such as Homer’s Odyssey, the works of Plato, Euripides, Aeschylus, and Sophocles, compared to New Testament scripture.
None of the aforementioned authors claim their writings are the inerrant word of an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Subsequently, no one is threatened with eternal punishment for not revering the written words of the Greek authors.
Do the authors of the new testament claim they're the inerrant word? or was that just something that christians added in later?
I guess that's probably complicated.
@Lu G. So you reject the bible because you don't like it saying that God will punish you forever if you don't repent and believe in Christ?
@Lu G. : That's absurd. Christians don't "threaten" any such thing. They *warn* of it. If you choose to ignore that, fine. But if they didn't warn you, they'd be negligent, assuming they really believe it to be true. When was there any time, honestly, any Christian threatened you of anything?
@@spitfiremase
The original authors of the New Testament have not yet been identified.
@@ant1k That isn't what he said at all. You made that up entirely in your head.
Wallace says ehrman was “Skirting the issues I raised with you” but yet after Erhmans first round of questions Wallace started by saying straight up that he wasn’t going to answer erhmans questions yet and proceeded with his own set of questions.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." --Isaac Asimov
Interesting. How so?
@@soulcage6228 that quote is nonsensical tbh, and I'm not even a Christian.
@whiteliketar That is possibly the dumbest statement I have ever read. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god...Would the lack of collecting stamps make a good case for being a stamp collector? LOL. Come on man, don't be an idiot.
Brandon Carter good job that’s def a dumb quote ! ;)
@@BrandonCarter469 Atheism is a non-belief. It is completely irrelevant. Anti-theism on the other hand is not a non-belief. Atheists, especially ones that would describe themselves as activists, are overwhelmingly anti-theist and thus full of shit. You hardly meet common sense atheists online. All of them parrot catch phrases and caricatures of religion all the time. It is like looking at idiot children honestly. And I know because I was one of those type of atheists. Luckily, I have evolved since then and actually tried to explain the phenomenon of religion in an objective way without resorting to bad reasoning. Evolutionary psychology is a good instrument as is history. You realize that religion is a feature, not a bug. Religious thinking is something the human brain does. And today we are witnessing a growth in irrationality, not a reduction. And funny enough, it coincides with the deconstruction of mainstream classical religion. People are filling up the space left by faith in classical religions with secular beliefs which in turn are also pretty irrational.
It's good to see Ehrman debating a seasoned professional.
If you watch the video again, they said they've been debating each other for the past 30 years.
I like the Burden of Proof by Ehrman, the engineers need to prove the bridge is trustworthy. Wallace claims we are all on the train. clearly we are not. If we are, show me the caboose so i can jump off this thing.
When Bart says “we don’t know”, meaning, the opposition has to provide the evidences. If you fail, then you have to admit that you’re in the wrong. I rest my case.
The evidence of what?
@@javierborda8684 That we are close to the original text, how can you say that you are close to the original text if you are just basing your text on the copies of copies of copies of copies.
@@criticalsage
How can you say there isn't when we haven't even been through all of them yet? You do realize how long it takes to go through a text and then we have ALOT, I mean, ALOT. We can't just wave a wand and viola. Not to mention how many different times new ones pop up from crazy places.
@@criticalsage
Hell we haven't even fully counted them yet.
Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe.
Read Matthew.
Read 1 John chapter 4.
Read Genesis chapter 40.
th-cam.com/video/px_BUquo3Vc/w-d-xo.html
You can always count on a bad moderator to interrupt the debaters during a back and forth when the discussion finally gets good and this moderator didn't disappoint.
Thank you for the debate, and for airing it as you have done, here. How unfortunate, though, that the video concludes with a handful of characters who uniformly endorse the notion that Professor Wallace presented the stronger of the two cases. It would seem to me that the purpose of the video is to all its viewers to decide, and even to mull over the question whether designating a "winner" is the most useful way of appropriating the material presented here. Moreover, those "interviewed" (they aren't are they?) at the end, or better put, asked to comment as to who "won", exhibit the kind of reasoning that in other frameworks would amount to an excellent series of examples of confirmation bias. Why were they included here, anyway? The integrity of the video and presentation has been compromised by including them.
Thanks for posting Dr Erhman. Wallace was indispensable in helping me learn Greek and you were crucial in helping me let go of ancient superstitions. Tremendous respect for both of you in your search for truth.
Bart ehrman I’m a big fan keep doing what you do
Five mistakes.
Anyone who makes me think deeper of .y faith gets my vote coz love when ppl like Dan responds
Bart is the bridge between the Creationists and the atheists.
The debate summed up in 2 sentences.
1) Ehrman believes since we can't be 100% sure then we can't be sure at all.
2) Wallace believes we can't be 100% sure but based on the evidence its probable that we can be sure.
That is a straw man of Bart's position.
...faith...
...simple...
@@jakesanders136
Sure, the vast majority of the New Testament as it existed 200 years after the originals were written can be recovered.
Not true... Bart ehrman states the probability of a copy that equalizes the original, yet, a probability isn't to be trusted.
@Revelation 3:9 Matthew 19:28 good point there.
What questions did Wallace answer? He kept asking Ehrman questions; Ehrman gave some answers. Wallace gave none?
Yeah, Ehrman did answer “I don’t know”.
As Mark Twain stated: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies..."
You can always count on a bad moderator to interrupt the debaters when some really important back-and-forth discussion organically emerges.
Why interview only people who are obviously christian at the end. Ehrman was intellectually honest whilst Wallace believes he is correct without evidence.
that's probably almost everyone in the audience.
It's a matter of odds and what percentage of the overall audience fits into the believing/non-believing parties.
without evidence? The entire NT is the evidence which Erhman admits is largely as it was written if you pin him down.
@Shameless Papist then why did ehrman deconvert if he's so biased and entrenched?
@@karcharias811 The New Testament isn't evidence of anything. It is a claim, and a shaky one at that.
After watching this debate, there are a few things that I want to prove constructive criticism about the discussion. I will try to be fair on both people. I do realize that I will be a bit harsher on Wallace because I find that many of his arguments are flawed.
1) The thing that I found about Wallance argument is that he wants to convince people that because we have so many manuscripts of the new testament, it means than any other ancient text it means that it is more reliable
2) If we want to say that the NT is not reliable, then we have to say that all of the ancient manuscripts are not reliable, and as such, we will go back in the age of darkness. To me, this is an argument to appeal to emotion. The simple truth is that we don't have an accurate representation of history. It is just an account of what has occurred.
3) As for the reliability of the text, Wallance tried to use his experiment that with his 70 churches that they found that the variable of errors was about 4 errors. However, he did not say the significance of those errors. Here are two variance sentence in which both of that sentence as only 1 letter difference
* I can do this Honey
* I can't do this Honey
Both of these sentences have 1 letter difference of where the meaning of the ENTIRE sentence changes.
4) I would love where they get that number that 99% of the text is preserved. This argument seems way too convenient. I realize that most of these are spelling mistakes. A spelling mistake can make a difference depending on which word you spell. Here is another example of a spelling mistake of a single word that changes the meaning of the word itself: Long vs lung
5) Wallace did bring a high point that tax collector is more accurate to record their record than those who specialize in literature record keeping. Bert failed to respond to how those people were not able to keep an actual record
6) Wallace did make a high point about the probability of knowing the most likeable outcome Which to me Bert fails to consider how the likelihood of finding the most accurate.
7) Yet it does not mean that we do have the original text because even in a probability situation, there is still some element of chance that the probability is actually wrong. After all, if you have a likelihood of a 97% chance of being accurate, you still have a chance of 3% of being inaccurate. I know that 3% might not seem significant. To understand the impact of how significant those changes are with the figure of 1% that is a considerable change. There are 150k in the NT that would mean that there are 1500 significant words. Kinda change the perspective, eh?
8) Wallace makes the argument that you can reconstruct the entire new testament with the Greek fathers. I actually want to see the evidence that you can actually do that. I bet that this is an exaggeration, and you won't be able to reconstruct it. I also do know that some of the church father is quoting things from the Bible that does not exist from our Bibles.
you are right.Here in Mizoram, North East India, Society is devided harshly along the The Trinity line.Just one line which Bar pointd out was not present in the earlier Greek.The division is very deep in a 100pervent christian state in a hindu nation. Its not trivisl ad Mr Wallace made out to be.
@@marcus-tq7js : That's because the doctrine of the Trinity is not derived from that one line, but from the whole body of OT and NT scripture.
On #1 : No, the argument is that we can have greater confidence of reconstructing the autographs from this vast multitude of textual evidence.
On #2 : In actual fact, the faith of a well educated Christian doesn't depend on having the word-for-word exact autographs, anyway. It usually depends on having an encounter with the living Christ first.
On #3 : That's an example of a meaningful conflict, and possibly one which is also important. There are few such errors extant in the NT; and we know what they are, so we know what to be skeptical about. The woman caught in adultery is one example, and the explicit line about the Trinity is another. They are known and owned.
Ah, I wish the scholars hadn’t been interrupted when they were going at it - not for the drama, but to hear more of the live fight, _at their level_ . I wanted more of those details. Plus I admit I liked the passion (so ok, drama ;) ).
Russian Bot Farm I’d like a box of Russian Bots. Do you happen to have any fresh ones in stock?
THE WHOLE THING IS AN INSULT TO BARTS INTELLIGENCE, WHY DOES HE EVEN WASTE HIS EFFORT ON THE IDIOT SHEEP, THEY DO NOT DESERVE HIS TIME
The best part of the debate was the free wheeling between Bart and Wallace, but the moderator cut them off too short, not allowing them to go deeper. Moderators always do this as if they make it about themselves and not the two debaters.
Beautiful expose by both men, well balanced, entertaining, straight forward and to the point and much agreed upon by both professors.
Ok here we go I love these, Bart d Ehrman is the best!!
Bart is extremely good, he has GREAT knowledge, but that said, some could also argue against spin in his remarks. In this video, if you had NO knowledge of the issue, listening to Bart - you would think that you simply can´t rely on the bible as there are 10s of thousands of "errors/different readings", and we simply don´t know what the original said. Well, we don´t have the original texts, so from ONE perspective that is true, but my question is, HOW MUCH do the oldest text we have found differ from the newer ones?
One would expect that an old text would differ more "as there are thousands and thousands of differencies later". But no, the Papyri 52, from the beginning of the 2nd century don´t have any weird readings that would differ from the versions we have today.
Bart himself, says in this video that the majority of the "hundred of thousands" of errors are very small, spelling errors. The following would count as 2 "errors" = They went t Jerusalm"... there are 2 errors, but do you or a possible person who copies the text, have difficulties in copying or understanding the text? I think not. There are some examples where words translated wrong etc have given a text a different meaning, but back to my point, P 52 is extremely similar to the text we have today.
PjotrII hey I agree Bart is very good, about theses text in which they are referring to are as many as 5300, small fragments and bigger pieces. Errors can be defined as plots that reflect a different story from which we have now, like the changing of words when Mary went to Jesus and said to him me and your father have been looking for you, well instead of your father like the older text said the latter scribe changed it to Joseph that’s significant. The Mary Magdalene story in John the older text doesn’t contain it but tradition of altering the text and adding and taking away to fit a narrative, had the scribe making their own gospels augmenting and disturbing the text. If we find hundreds of thousands different differences in the ones we have now makes us think what the originals look like.
@@PjotrII
P52 is 3.5" x 2.5" at its widest containing partial lines from John. Not even a full line. Don't understand how one can possibly use it to prove credibility. If you can, it would also mean you can use it to prove the opposite.
Since they both agree that the text we have today is false and we can never know what originally was in the text I don't understand why the debate is two hour long?
Evidence Payment by the minute?
Cognitive dissonance
Neither of them said that the text is false.
Since they both agree that the text is over 99% accurate is more like it. Apparently for radical skeptics 99.4% accuracy over 2000 years is not sufficient when you talking about Christian texts. But Aristotle? Who knows and who cares it is Aristotle !!! We love him!!
Erhman is guilty of this. All he says when it comes to the Canon of NT is "We can't know, we can't know, blah blah" Then I find video of him talking about the Gospel of Thomas to a Gnostic hippie society in Oregon somewhere and just fawning over it. Never mind that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the mid second century possibly the third.
There are shills out here making false comments.
It's called propaganda.
If you have a car and over time change all the parts... is it still the same car?
To those lacking in wisdom, it's the same car.😊😊
In his conclusion, Wallace says he's "relatively certain". Which is it? He should drop the "certain" part. He's relatively confident.
If the original words are recoverable, how will we know when we have them? We have no basis for comparison. How will we know the original words once we've found them?
What you can take home is that Dr. Wallace didn't engage and answer the specific questions that Dr. Ehrman asked. Secondly, the point where Dr. Wallace was going over about classical works such as Homer etc. and how they also face the same fate as the New Testament is a red herring. Nobody takes the classical works of Homer as being divinely revealed or written works inspired to the authors by God. It is therefore not subject to inerrancy whereas some Christians claim inerrancy on behalf of the gospel works despite the contradictions and varied manuscripts which differ from each other. A chalk and cheese comparison if i ever saw one. Food for thought. Peace ✌
While that is true, I don't think it's a very strong point in a Biblical scholarship context. Not everyone is an inerrantist; I'd argue that most modern Christians and Jews are in fact not.
First you’re assuming the manuscripts contain contradictions, second you’re ignoring what Dr Wallace stated, first they didn’t have an open discussion, you can’t claim “oh he didn’t answer this,” second, it doesn’t matter if we believe their works were inspired, you’re missing the point and running to random things, the New Testament is unparalleled by any other text. Does it matter if the text is inspired? No, does it matter that it’s oldest manuscript is 1000 years after the original and people still believe it? YES. That’s the entire point dude, this isn’t a red herring
I'm kind of the mind that if 'God' had a book or some writings it wanted to communicate to humankind, that not a single letter would be changed ever. Period. Incorruptible, unchangeable. What does 'God' need scribes for? Engrave your words on the worlds largest diamond and protect it with a force field. Man, the low standards people have for the supposed creator of the universe.
Agreed
Why limit God? Why doesn't he just broadcast straight into our brains, whenever we have a wrong thought?
Jim C Good point! Didn't he try this out with Moses and the tablets of stone? But, after Moses got angry and smashed them, god only had enough patience left to do one copy before somehow giving up on the idea. Explaining himself in this way would have saved so much trouble, although the whole set would hardly have been portable.;)
And why is God forced to do any of that? people who have studied deep into this conclude different things...not one but many... dismissing all arguments is foolish
There is another book that came after and was sent to the whole of mankind and not just the children of Israel. That book is the Quran still as it was sent down over 1400 years ago.
Wow, what a great debate! Quite evenly matched as well. I think it comes down to the amount of skepticism each individual has. I am on the side of Wallace because I think it’s more important that vital information is reliably preserved.
I love these debates. Would love to see more, because your research changed my life for the better.
Excellent! Excellent debate!!! One of the best debates I've ever heard.
Yahweh must be watching and clapping also.
The gospels of Peter, Luke , Matthew, and John all tell the story of Mary going to the tomb of Jesus. But each story is different from the others. Eg:
Matthew: An angel comes down from heaven, rolls back the stone covering the entrance, and then tells everyone that Jesus has already risen.
Mark : The stone is already rolled away from the entrance when everybody gets there and there is a young man inside ( angel?) who says Jesus has already risen.
Luke: The stone is already rolled away from the entrance, and as if by magic two men appear (angels?) and tell them Jesus has already risen.
John: In this last version Mary shows up, finds the stone moved and the body gone. Two men (angels?) ask her why she's crying. Jesus himself appears and tells Mary that he is about to rise to heaven.
The story of the resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most important story of the Bible from the Christian point of view and yet 4 different versions of the event from the primary Biblical sources.
@febri patar You're right. The details have differences but the overall portrait of the story is the same.
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973
No.
To be errorless.....
Is the stone there when they arrive or not?
The authors of the gospels weren't really concerned with our modern way of writing history. It's an ancient literary genre of biography where they felt free to include it exclude details based in the point the author wanted to make.
@susan didary And then real Jesus lived on an island with his wife Mary Magdalene, happy to finally not be the center of the attention anymore ? :3 Sounds like Mickael Jackson conspiracy theories ^_^
@susan didary ...Susan, you seem to be a good dreamer.
The big issue and concern Ehrman presents is on display at 39:11 - "we cannot know if the scriptures reliable". His whole argument is that we don't know if the scriptures are reliable. He is right, we don't know. I'm still a Christian, I still read the bible, and I don't have to believe the bible is inerrant to read it nor to be a Christian. I thank Dr. Ehrman for all the work he has done and I'm pleased to have such a great resource to refute my brothers and sisters who are stuck in 'Bible Worship' instead of 'Christ Worship'. The truth is that all must come to any belief they have through faith. Ehrman has faith that the Christ is not risen. He bases that faith on evidence that we are not able to know beyond a doubt that the scriptures are inerrant. His faith against Christ is as dubious as my faith in Christ. In the end, if I'm wrong I died living a better life. If he is wrong he dies and goes to hell. That is a big gamble to make on his own assertion that "we don't know".
Our hope is in Lord God and His eternal word Jesus we trust🤗
You say that you died living a better life. Well, what does that mean? Can a person who doesn't believe in God and Jesus not live a better life than one who does? I've seen extremely helpful and compassionate atheists, and I've seen very arrogant and self-centered Christians. Which lived the better life?
Also, Pascal's wager isn't a valid method of deciding what to believe in. Because what if you're both wrong and Islam actually has it right? Or what if Hinduism has it right? Or what if Zoroastrianism is right? Or what if, somehow, not believing in any religion is actually what allows you to have a good afterlife? Is gambling on what might be the right choice simply because "Well, it's better than nothing" a reasonable thing to do? It's just an idea that can potentially comfort you, but it's not a logical decision to come to.
We don't know what the original says, but we do know the copies are mistakes. Puzzling..
Ahhhh, Pascal’s wager!! You are assuming that you are worshipping the right God! What if you are worshipping the wrong God and you go to hell anyway? Remember you’re only a Christian because of your upbringing, social influences and the time period of which you were born. If you lived 5 thousand years ago, you’d be worshipping another God. If you lived in another country, you’d belong to another religion but you’re a Christian which tells me you might live in the United States. Your beliefs are not based on some objectively verifiable truth, your beliefs are based on what you were taught to believe (from childhood) society influences, your geographical location on this planet and the time period of which you were born.
This is such an academic point of discussion. The original text is gone so it's completely speculatory.
That's incorrect . It's not completely speculative, good science goes into reconstruction. We actually have a very good idea what the original was
The elephant in the room is; both men agree that the trinity is not present in all the oldest manuscripts. And I've read that in the revised standard version of the bible even the resurrection of jesus was removed because it was not in the earliest manuscripts. But that the heads of church got so upset they insisted both be put back. Hence, new revised standard versions of the bible were printed with both added back into the text.
My question is; if those verses were not in the oldest manuscripts then what happens to Christianity?
Who wrote these manuscripts? We don’t really know. The debate should of ended there.
This debate was about the scribal transmission of the texts and how accurate or not that process was, not who wrote the autographs.
@Ναζωραῖος
If 90% of history was claimed to have been transmitted by an all-knowing deity, and followed to the letter by fanatics, you might have a point.
@Ναζωραῖος
Plus all the anonymous posts on the internet... oh... wait.... ;-)
T A Quite a silly claim ... If "debate" should end because we don´t know who wrote a text, I do not know of any ancient text that we can verify by 100% certainty who wrote it. If an Egyptian text on a wall doesn´t have a name of the writer - we should end the debate (research) right there. MMMmmm yeah!
@Ναζωραῖος Even if they didn´t want to deceive us, we would have no sources from the ancient time to build our history upon. We can´t verify to a 100% certainty who wrote what in the ancient world.
Excellent debate - with both speakers conducting themselves professionally. How refreshing. And yet, there's a point where the debate starts to go into epistomolgical circles - "can we know, can we know for sure...who knows". It would be great, perhaps next time, to see how biblical textual research examines the veracity of some of the main articles of Christian faith (i.e. was Jesus the son of God or merely a son of God (John 10:36 in the earliest manuscripts does not include the definite article "the")? From Jesus' perspective, does one enter the Kingdom of Heaven through faith - or good works? (as Ehrman hints at by citing Matt. 25)? Did Jesus see himself as a sacrfice for mankind, or as a reformer against a Persian-influenced, corrupted Judaism?...etc.
Big fan of Bart Erhman
One man theological wrecking ball.
Only in your head.
We should all do more thinking and less opining. I doubt anyone in this thread has a degree in Biblical Studies or done a fraction of the research that these men have. I know I haven't. Their opinions of each other's views are far more important than ours are of them, and we would do well to remember that.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME Your delusions only exist in your head lmao
I like Ehrman too, but I thought Wallace's point about Mark being used by Matthew and Luke was good evidence for Mark being very close to the original. I don't think Ehrman responded to it.
I'm praying for his salvation. That God will open his eyes to see the truth of Gods word
well. wallace seems to be a decent scholar for a southern baptist. i went to southern baptist seminary for my undergrad and experienced many moronic arguments.
i understand wallace’s argument: that even if there are errors or inconsistencies or all these issues, it doesn’t take away from the NT being the Word of god nor does it impact his faith.
I’m with Dr E however. these are significant problems. Ehrman has a ton of lectures on the problems with the NT as well as an analysis as to how Jesus became “god.” He was only able to barely skim parts of the problems with the NT in this debate.
check it out if you’re not familiar with him.
Where Wallace fails in this debate is that he never really touches on the issues Dr E brings up and so is talking past Ehrman instead of engaging directly in the debate. I find that Wallace’s chief weakness is in what most christians do........ making assertions and not backing it with real evidence. or using weak evidence. Also making assertions that really are irrelevant like comparing biblical criticism to herodotus, etc. that’s a weak argument.
the bible, if it is the word of god, should be without error. if god is real and the message of salvation is critical, why didn’t god make sure there were zero errors and that the message came across in one consistent non-dead language?to me that’s the crux. if the message of salvation is the most important thing on planet earth and 8billion people’s lives depend on it, why in the hell cant god communicate and show himself and be plain about his message? there’s a huge reason to dump the bible in the trash and move on.
i am not a believer tho i was devout at one time, for the majority of my life. parents are missionaries. all my schooling was christian. but the moment i pulled my head out of all of that i saw the light and had a conversion to atheism. i say that tongue in cheek. i simply realized none of it can be true. none of it. and while i still keep my toe in theology and even read the bible at times for study, i find christianity the pinnacle of silliness now. my poor mother is so consumed with satan and hell and talks about that more than jesus. it’s death anxiety. it makes me angry so many are duped.
ridiculously long, but, i felt the need to weigh in. bart ehrman is the shit and ive learned so much from him. breath of true reality.
if you enjoy debates check out matt dilahunty and the atheist experience. also visit your local atheist group.
You are free to your views; but please don't assume those of us who keep faith are too stupid to realize 'we are duped'. I do not find atheist arguments compelling. Whilst I understand your expectations re the Bible needing to be perfectly preserved if it truly is God's message of salvation, I think it's overly-simplistic. The historical Christian view (not the baptist view) is that the Bible is part of God's revelation. God also speaks through a living Church. Therefore, the Bible isn't God's only chance to speak to us, so it doesn't need perfect preservation--just enough to communicate the message, which it does.
> the bible, if it is the word of god, should be without error
Right. This. I've heard pastors say that God chose that period of history because classic (or whatever variation of) Greek was so expressive and accurate. Well, ok God, why not also make several sets of tablets that explain Jesus' equality (or non-equality) with God, whether a Trinity is a good way to look at things and what its nature is, etc etc?
Your story is a lot the same as mine, missionary parents included. As for your local atheist group, I've only been to one, though it was entertaining. But I found the saying to be true, "When you stop believing in God you start believing in everything". They'd talk about all kinds of esoterica, though it was mostly just entertainment - a group of similar people having fun.
But like you say, when you pull your head out of Christianity it's ridiculous. What, Jesus' death was God playing an accounting trick on himself? Ok ...
But like you, I have leftover interest in it all. Before encountering Ehrman the leftovers of my belief were a separate part of my brain - I knew it was incorrect but it was coherent (struggling to express this). Bart's books slashed big gouges into that world. My most recent engagement was patristics - how the church fathers turned the mess of the New Testament into theology. It makes you see that no-one has the right to condemn anyone for thinking that Jesus wasn't God, or that the Trinity was modal, one God with three aspects, or whatever - honest men disagreed.
Wow. Well said. I appreciate and I identify with every one of those comments. I'm in a very similar place to you. All the best to you on your journey.
EXCELLENT, VERY WELL THOUGHT THRU AND WRITTEN !
keep drinking your kool-aid umbrella, you've been deceived.
Still in Wallace's opening statement, but it amazes me that I'm *_supposed_* to be amazed that there are more copies of texts that were being churned out by the church than there are copies of the works of ancient historians. If there was a Church of Tacitus cranking out manuscripts, I wonder how many of *_those_* would have survived.
Good point, and also there was the fact that the Church was involved in, um, shall we say "purging" a lot of ancient texts.
@@TheRealShrike , that is true. The church had a long standing tradition of censoring and banning "blasphemous" literature. They even banned the Talmud for a time. The Talmud actually had to be edited so as to appease the Church.
No, it's God.
After viewing several of Dr. Ehrman's debates on youtube, it seems to me he has yet to encounter a truly worthy opponent... which is certainly not his fault at all.
I've loved watching Dr. Ehrman debate, and I share a large amount of his views. The only truly worthy opponent I have seen was the debate against Michael Bird. Not that Bird made me change any of my views, but he is by far the most articulate and most direct debater I have seen Dr. Ehrman go up against. If you actually are looking for a worthy opponent I recommend that debate.
Faith is not an argument.
Dr. Craig to him to the cleaners, hands down. It's what happens when you face a logician.
Spoken like an atheist/agnostic.
Around halfway through the debate Wallace admits to not answering Bart Ehrman's questions and then proceeds to never answer them. In my mind, if you can't answer the simple questions raised by Ehrman you might as well not debate because it's an admission the bible is unreliable.
GREAT PRESENTATION. GREAT HUMOR TOO. LEARNED A LOT. CLASSIFIED QUESTIONS DONE BY THE GREAT SCHOLARS. THANK YOU
Regardless of who you think won the debate, the real winner is the audience (at least the audience that listens). Very informative stuff!
Bart Ehrman has never lost a debate......ever!
CORRECT. But, he better stay away from Carrier. Bart don't want that smoke.
😑😑😑😑
@@Noel-Roar , Carrier has invited Ehrman to discuss the mythological nature of the Gospels, and Bart refuses. While Ehrman is the better public speaker, Carrier is a much better research scholar and debater.
Carrier was extremely rude and disrespectful to Bart. I don't blame him for not wanting to debate him. And moreover, the Jesus is a myth faction are really on the fringe and despite his research, Carrier and his gang are extremely dogmatic.
Well, he kinda did here but we are not gonna bat an eye over it, huh?
He was literally complaining about the manuscripts over and over but didn't give any more insight on the questions "Why have there been soo many copies that have been kept throughout the years?"
Why was it important that has been passed on for generations while other myths died out long ago?
Have you ever thought about that?
They're all gonna say wallace because they are christians and couldnt handle ehrmans points.
Ehrman silenced wallace in the term 'original' text not being used by textual critics but using it only for 'practical' purposes
Most of the debate is about validity of the text. I'm far more concerned about the 'telephone game', 40 years of gossip by people who wanted the stories to be true, and perhaps more than true.
multiple streams of manuscripts and their comparative study makes that concern a mere laymans misunderstanding. It doesnt work that way. And its rather conspiratorial, and is kind of like assuming all the rich people have parties where they eat the poor behind closed doors.
Ehrman: All I ask is that you approach it with an open mind.
Audience: What did he say? My hearing has left the building.
@Denzo Dridz There are no copies, of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the actions of alexander the great. There are some manuscript parts 400 years after his death. but you still believe it isn't historically reliable.
Nick Tham so you are comparing Alexander the Great to Jesus Christ? Theological arguments to historical arguments? Brilliant brother Nick
@@alhassangangu4357 I fail to see how you address the question Nick posed. As Wallace said, people don't apply the same level of scepticism to other historical documents than they do the Bible. People hate Jesus and therefore the Bible. So let's say you find a cave with 1000 copies of Aristotle and tgere are 200 000 differences, will people discount Aristotle? Nope
An open mind is for happy philosophers.
@NothingButTheTruthInChrist Agreed, "Listen" does not mean agree with me.
Even as a Christian, I am a great fan of Ehrman. I think most people who debate him do not give him enough credit when they are preparing for the debate. That said, I think Wallace did the better job here.
I like Bart, he's got a very personable way about him which can clearly be seen at the beginning of this debate. I think that where things have gone wrong for this man is that he has run to the end of the available knowledge on this subject and hasn't found enough evidence to convict him with absolute certainty of the claims of Christianity. I admire his honesty but find it sad that he is unable to bridge the gap of what he does know with faith. As I see it, every belief system requires some level of faith and Bart has finally taken the position of Agnostic when he meets this point. He will never be an atheist either for this same reason.
right at the start of this, I am curious how different the text of P45 is versus the older (4th century) manuscript of Mark? That could provide a decent benchmark for estimating how different P45 might be from the original manuscript(s).
So basically Ehrmann says even though there is not so much discussion on the main essence, we cannot know the details, while Wallace tells us that though we can't know all the details, there can't be much discussion on the main essence? I enjoyed this very much, both are very good public speakers.
You got that right my man. They pretty much agree on alot of things. It just that they disagree on how to understand it.
Another difference is that Wallace is being reasonable and consistent. He accepts that we can't know with 100% certainty but we could have relative certainty (which is quite high). This is how the world work.
On the other hand, Ehrman is being dishonest and inconsistent. He said that historian deals with probabilities. But he refuses (more like "he dodges" ) the huge probabilities that what we have is what was written.
Any scriptural manipulation is significant no matter how small. If the claim is that the new testament is the inspired word of god then the question arises does god inspire forgeries?
A spelling error or a duplication of a line of text does not change the theology found in the text.
Very well done Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.
I love how they portray the ignorance of the audience about what was discussed in the debate.
The comments at the end showed some in the audience weren’t listening very well. It was not about the truth of the NT, it was about how sure we can be that the best NT we have today is the same as the original gospels. Wallace thinks that in all important respects it is, Erhman says he doesn’t know. For a text where our best copies are from at least 80 years after the gospels were written then surely Erhman’s position is the more intellectually honest one.
Pax Id say that’s a fair assessment of the debate topic and the positions taken.
Barts books and quotes helped me trust the scriptures even more🙏🏽❤️ When I was in school I also had to read books from Barts teacher. I’m sadden every time I think of Barts teacher and their relationship and the fact that he is no longer here. Of course Metzger has another famous biblical scholar student by the name of William lane Craig..brilliant guys. Metzger also made a huge impact on my professor❤️
Good job again , Dr. Ehrman. My only gripe about the format of these debates is that they grow tired. It seems that the podium lectures, then counter arguments, keep the debaters from really putting forth solid discussion. The best debates are when the speakers get to “cross examine” each other. Then they are required to directly answer the other’s questions. This one got good toward the end then until the moderator stopped it and moved them into their “final arguments” (just another lecture). It’s like sitting in church listening to a sermon which will, hopefully, become a thing of the past.
Dr. Ehrman crushed him... any other conclusion you just don't know what you're talking about... or you're a Christian (which you have no idea what your talking about)... love how they interviewed the audience afterwards to ask their thoughts about the debate... all polled were Christians... listen to why they think Ehrman lost... their reasons are so far from reality that they must have slept through the debate...
agreed 🤝
Dr. Wallace crushed him... any other conclusion you just don't know what you're talking about... or you're an Atheist or Agnostic (which you have no idea what your talking about)... love how they interviewed the audience afterwards to ask their thoughts about the debate... all polled were Christians... listen to why they think Ehrman lost... their reasons are so true to reality that they must have paid rapt attention through the debate...
Myself and the audience watched two different debates. I am going to boil it down too, when you base your life on Faith, you take the documentation on Faith as well.
Only "ONCE" in the bible is Jesus directly asked, "what is required for salvation"? His answer, "keep the commandments" {ten} and "SELL all your possessions and give the money to the poor". The bias of the pious, cherry pick'n their pie and eat'n it too!
moody rick And no christian today ever sells all their possessions and gives the money to the poor. They would rather kick the poor and the poor immigrants right outa the country.
Waddup rick, this was always my issue with the conservative political ideology's claiming they were christian yet, many of them being pro capital punishment (which is insanely unchristian), not being accepting to others, being nationalistic to the point of picking a member of their nation over a "fellow" christian of a different nation. and many other issues i could get into. Anyways, yea, 99% of christians wont turn their cheek to someone hitting them, bless their enemies or being willing to give up their things for the poor. But its hard man lol, i tried when i was a christian, its hard.
moody rick but after Jesus says this, his disciples then ask him: “How is possible for anyone to have salvation, this is too hard”. Jesus then says: “For man this is impossible, but for God everything is possible”. (Paraphrased)
Did you take this into account?
And Christians say you have to believe in an innocent mans death and that he died for your sin the most unjust thing ever 😂
Greetings to you, Dr Erhman, from Mizoram, India
Big fan of Bart. He made me Realize my Whole Catholic life was a LIE. CAN I GET MY MONEY BACK?
Me too.
Enh, if you treat it as a shell of goodness with no core, some people find it valuable.
Dan Scalone Same.
He believes in God, but he don't believe in the nowdays Bible.
Nope.
Mr. Wallace is correct that we can be relatively highly accurate to reconstruct the content. In this case Quantity can lead to quality of reconstruction.
How do we know the the texts were not changed significantly before our earliest surviving manuscripts ?
1 The early church before 100 AD was tiny in comparison to post 300, so changes either intentional or unintentional would have been easy to spot, and given the insignificant rate of corruption in the surviving texts there is no justification to believe any greater rate of corruption for pre 100AD manuscripts.
2 If the scribes took such painstaking care in the surviving manuscripts which they demonstrably did, there is no reason to think the first scribes would have taken less care in copying or transmission prior to 100AD.
3. One would have to assume the early church was actually a conspiracy whereas the authors actions and writings were malevolent in nature and there is no evidence for that, quite the contrary. If their actions were an honest reflection of their beliefs of the events surrounding Jesus ministry, and they believed he was the Christ and they were charged with spreading the gospel, one could only assume they would want to tell the truth.
The only way to assume significant corruption occurred between 30 to 120 is speculation the early church is nothing more than a massive hoax, and the only reason to believe that, is the rejection of the testimonies of the miraculous.
So a bunch of guys and gals before 100AD got together and decided to make up a false religion that at it's core is truth, benevolence, loving your neighbors and your enemies and helping the widows and the poor ?
Now that would indeed be quite the conspiracy were it true...
well put!
Can we trust new testament?
Bart:
No we cannot as we don't know who wrote and what was written originally.
Dan:
Bart is right and I agree, but you know to make a debate to look good I am going to disagree.
Thank you a lot, you taught me so much, that i am more comfortable with my believe that Bible was written by human.
This is the most brain dead comment I’ve seen
Believers in religion teach us that God will reward men for good actions, but men who are intellectually free, know that the reward of a good action cannot be given by any power, but that it is the natural result of the good action.
The free man, guided by intelligence, knows that his reward is in the nature of things, and not in the caprice even of the Infinite. He is not a good and faithful servant, he is an intelligent free man.
-Robert G. Ingersoll
Mmmm, yeah, tell that to all the whistleblowers whose lives get wrecked, and often with no or not much effect.
God does not base grace off of good works my friend, in fact, His word says that if we love Him we would keep his commands. His commands are indeed good. And we as Christian's do such things. Not for a reward, but because He died for us so that we may live for him. Putting your so called "reward" from the worldview of naturalism is hardly a reward at all. There is no objective moral value in that worldview. There is no good or bad. So, who cares about rewards when I can just take yours?
"Believers in religion teach us that God will reward men for good actions" Except that is the very opposite of Protestantism.
For all have sinned and fell short of the Glory of God.
For the wAges of sin is death.
You sin you die...
Simple as that.
And that's why Took the penalty for our sins with his sacrifice so that we may have life.
What makes Good good and Bad bad if there is nothing beyond that physical life.
Glad to see these sort of things are becoming more widely discussed and debated. Absolutist certainty at last has now a solid substantial counter.... my concern has been that a declining mainstream Christianity has left the field open to a rigid unchanging biblical rump who will end up never being challenged.
It was great to get an insight into the scholarship and ongoing debates within biblical academic circles and disagreements without fighting to the death as in the past.
I thought the concluding audience remarks reflect the conservative nature of SMU.
An encounter of differing views helps to change ones perspective...modifying or changing views or just the realisation that others hold compelling reasons with sincere convictions.
We already knew this from 1400.
👊👍
That's true!....
Yes indeed
Well Bart Ehrman admitted that those varancies do not change our theological positions.
Agree...
Dr. Bart is the the very conscious of our inquiry, he has always been straightforward, honest, and truthful in seemingly every way. He reminds me of my goofy, but very intelligent uncle during Thanksgiving always brings to the festivities, his since of humor. He clearly won the debate, as with every other contender, that obviously leans towards their personal biases, prejudices and theological beliefs are, a clear contradiction and conflict of interest.
Thank's Dr. Ehrman, love your work.
Matt is the voice of reason in a faith based jungle.
I like Bart's 'work' even more when Disouza uses Bart's head to "mop the floor" with" during his debate with the agnostic.
Take a shot every time Bart says "copy"
I died of alcohol poisoning 3 minutes in
That's what the debate is supposed to be about and Ehrman is specifically a manuscript expert. What did you expect? How else should he have referred to manuscript copies in a debate about manuscript copies?
I did and was drunk before his introduction to the debate was even over!
I believe Bart is be closer to explaining the truthfulness of where we are and how we got here. still, repetition of a word in an argument is suspect, no? I like saying it myself but next time I watch him im bringing a coors lite and only a tiny sip for each repetition!
I've not listened to Dan before. This exchange was very enjoyable.
The Gospel acc. to Snoopy is a little flawed when you compare modern literacy rates to 2nd/3rd century literacy rates among early Christians, and the materials used for reading and writing, not to mention lighting.
What would happen if they repeated this by candle light on parchment with a quill among a group with a more representative literacy rate?
They'll probably have to surrender their spectacles too.
The problem with Wallace's argument is that it's essentially an argument from hope. He wants to believe that we have the original text so he makes whatever points he can to supports his belief and ignores those points that don't.
In terms of deliberate changes, the period immediately following the composition of a text is when it is most likely to be changed - when few copies exist and people reading it find that they don't like parts of it and decide to change it.
We don't have any NT texts from these periods and in the early decades of Christianity the texts didn't have the Holy Scripture status that they would later have. Early Christians routinely changed existing texts, fabricated stories about Jesus and wrote texts that claimed to have been authored by apostles and other famous people - it was the norm.
Luke changes things words and events that are in Mark, nearly half the Pauline Epistles are regarded as forgeries by most scholars, not to mention the fact that there were far more gospels written that were considered as fabrications in the first few centuries than the 4 that were subsequently canonized.
Forging, fabricating and changing texts was the norm in the early Christian decades and centuries.
I'd like to know how Paul got included. His message is way different then Jesus/iesus/yashua's. I trust shem tov's hebrew matthew over the KJV, do what Moses said over what the Pharisees say.
I agree. I see Paul as the "Joseph Smith" of his day. He was the greatest charlatan ever. He hijacked the message of Jesus, and fused it with Judaism and his Hellenistic, pseudo gnostic, mystery religion influenced philosophies. It was very effective amongst the polytheistic Greco-Roman world in which he was proselytizing. An interesting and convincing position such as this is presented in Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. I however do believe that Jesus was actually sent with information from God.
Hard pass.
@@jefftaylor19
What information from god was that? Which god? What evidence do you have that it clearly was a message from specific god figure compared to others?
@@jefftaylor19 paul came in his own name, a master builder(freemason) it raises many questions that needs answers! 360 plus translations upto the KJV bible, when the Septuagint was translated into Greek the Hebrews threw a day of morning on the likes of going back to worshiping the golden bull. Jesus brought in the piscian age which wasnt so great. But told us to watch for the man carrying the pitcher of water(aquarius) and follow him in the city to the house(your body) to the upper foor (your brain/mind) and he will sup with you! Meditate, dont follow the blind!The last two Popes dropped the bomb and revealed that heaven an hell are states of mind!
Douglas no you have believed in the conspiracies theories that circulate on the web concerning Paul . Paul message about Jesus identity is the same as what Jesus claimed to be
Can we trust that the New Testament manuscripts accurately convey Jesus's message? For example, If Jesus did not say he was God in the synoptic gospels, can we trust John. And what about the verses in John that say Jesus is not God? ✌
John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time, but the one and only son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him." The Bible was a bit corrupted by popes over 1700 years of wishing to have a physical god you can strip naked and spit on. Humans are stupid and evil.
@Jeff Taylon
Peace be upon you. It's wonderful that you are reasoning.
Jesus Christ said and foretold COMMANDED by THE FATHER:
BY THE FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.
Radical Monotheism exactly like the Jewish Prophets / Jews to believe in a uniquely ONE GOD - without any partners or equals or like a three in one coffee the abomination of the Trinity - plus believing in the Messiah Jesus the Prophet sent by God, and the essential consistency with his doctrine - the Muslim.
The very words that the Father - THE ONLY TRUE GOD - COMMANDED Jesus Christ to say. The doctrine of THE ONLY TRUE GOD that HE COMMANDED Jesus Christ to give.
The testimony of Jesus Christ on the Father:
- The Only True God (John 17:3)
- The Only One Who Knows The Hour (Mark 13:32)
- Greater than I (John 14:28)
- Greater than all (John 10:29)
- My God and Your God (John 20:17)
The doctrine of Jesus Christ =
The doctrine of a Muslim.
(Of course the term Father in the Jewish context. A figure of speech for their times. NOT that God has a literal Son. God has got Son by the Ton in the Bible.)
Defenders of the true honor and status of Jesus Christ
VERSUS
Christianity more like the Greek and Roman doctrines and the pagan doctrines like "God" coming down in human form and human / blood sacrifice that pagans had going hand in hand with Paul's doctrines of easy fake salvation with blood of an innocent, making the Merciful God in to a blood thirsty vampire. The same people making Jesus Christ UNRIGHTEOUS by their position (believing in the fiction called Crucifixion) and making the Father a treacherous back-stabber by their position and doctrine. Christianity actually the followers of Paul.
2000 years ago, the Roman and Greek Empire with its culture and mythological and pagan roots already held the beliefs such as "God coming down in human form". So after witnessing just a single "miracle" from Paul the deceiver they were conforming to their already held beliefs. No wonder when they heard of this guy Jesus with all the stories of his miracles, it was very easy for them to take him as "Son of God" (and this concept later on developed in to taking him as God) as this already went hand in hand with their pagan and mythological belief system. Little wonder that those times and those places and people also had "Triads" and ancient "Trinities" and "God" in threes and stuff.
Acts 14:11
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "THE GODS HAVE COME DOWN to us IN HUMAN FORM!"
*******
NOT TO FORGET that the Christian EMBRACE what Jesus Christ himself REFUTED and EXPOSED as a LIE from the devil and those of the devil - the claim that he claimed to be God.
***********
Then of course the abomination of the alleged human "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ making the Most Merciful in to some human blood thirsty vampire. Going against the very teachings of the true Prophets and that includes Jesus Christ.
********
Unfortunately, it was the Pauline Christianity and Pauline doctrines, blended with pagan doctrine and backed up by the powerful Roman Empire that eventually won out over the years and wiped out the Jewish Christianity of radical monotheism.
Dr Dan Wallace might have presented evidences to support his argument but, at the end of the day, the real question is what Dr Bart Ehrman kept asking again and again repeatedly: What do we know about the first and the second century?
We don't, and we might or might not know in future.
Second question is: Even if we get hold of the original text of The New Testament books, does it in anyway confirm the incidences it narrates to us?
Again, I would like to answer no.
Because there is still a big time gap between the death of Jesus and the first book of NT.
Even if the time gap can be closed to very few years, does it confirm the life of Jesus as it says it happened? Including the Resurrection?
(That is supposing a man named Jesus lived and he died for the sins of people.)
This time, with more certainty, I would answer 'maybe/maybe not' for the question of the life of Jesus, and in absolute negativity for the question regarding resurrection.
I enjoy these discussions. Much I am already aware but I still hear another point of view and the reasoning supporting that point of view and the hurdles and difficulties in the tasks at hand. Very good!
The New Testment has the single most extensive manuscript tradition of any document in human history, variations are part of the process of multi focal dispersion and transmission through lay copyists and scribes. However this also prevents largescale changes by a centralized power. Also, Papyrus only lasts about a century or two in most parts of the Mediterranean basin (except for a few desert-like regions with low humidity ie parts of Egypt). In terms of a written document you will never have more evidence then what we have for the NT. God bless
Bart is the truth and the light!! Thank you...more videos tho please!!!
How this is even a debate leaves me pretty much hopeless for the future of humanity
Bart Ehrman won because he most of the time says that " thats why we cannot trust the NT" Wallce never says "thats why we can trust the NT."
Your statement proves nothing at all.
Imagine a drinking game where you just took a sip every time Bart said copy. You'd be on the floor.