Is The Original New Testament Lost? :: A Dialogue with Dr. Bart Ehrman & Dr. Daniel Wallace
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 окт 2024
- An evening of scholarly dialogue on the origins, the transmission, and the reliability of the New Testament. Do we have the original manuscripts? Can we trust the copies passed down to us? How accurate is our New Testament today? These questions and more were discussed by two top-tier NT scholars. Both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Wallace presented their respective positions before opening the floor for a time of Q&A.
ehrmanproject.com
This made for a very stimulating debate and the fact that both these titans have a good sense of humor made for a very entertaining watch.
Debate synopsis:
Ehrman: Yeah we have lots of texts but they are sort of jacked.
Wallace: Lots of texts though. Not _that_ jacked either.
Ehrman: Yes they are.
Wallace: Maybe, but not really.
This is an excellent debate between two clearly well educated scholars. I think that Daniel Wallace did an excellent job challenging Bart Ehrman, indeed I feel like I learned from Wallace, but I think Ehrman handily took this debate.
I'm a muslim and i think daniel wallace was right
@Truth Seeker - Why do you say that?
@@theguyver4934 You would have to be a Muslim to assert such nonsense.... oh 😄
This is probably the best debate/dialogue on this topic I've listened to yet. And I've listened to a lot. Both made interesting points. Both have given me food for thought. If only we could have more dialogues like this in general in the world like this
Of course, this is my point exactly. And this is why the ancient Fathers of the Church always said that the four gospels were written by "Apostles and apostolic men", meaning that Matthew and John were written by those two Apostles, while Mark and Luke were written by two men who knew, spoke to, and ultimately were scribes for the apostle Peter and others, those who knew and heard and accompanied the Lord during his ministry.
This has been known and recorded accurately from the beginning.
Great point! Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons settled the discussion of the accuracy of what was written and by whom. He gathered the writings that could be verified by "chain of custody" through the disciples of the Apostles to the Apostles or their disciples. (ex.- Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, a disciple of John and verifier of John's gospel.) He canonized what was verifiable into the NT in 180 AD. Only a deceiver or the misinformed would claim the NT to be mystery. No true scholar ever would!
Why can't the moderator read? Would he have made a good scribe?
He painfully illustrates Ehrman's argument.
Speakers begin at @ 7:30
7:30
8:30
Wished the sound was better, great lecture.
“The Gospels were written in such temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events.
Anyone who cared to could have checked out the accuracy of what they reported.
The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true."
- William Lane Craig
As an M.Div. student at Moody Theological Seminary, I tend to agree with Dr. Wallace. But this statement below make is seem that Dr. Ehrman is misquoting himself.] Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text. The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 - the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions - he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not - we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.So why does Ehrman give one impression to the general public and the opposite to the academic world? Could it be because he can get away with casting doubt on the New Testament to an uninformed public, but not to his academic peers? Does selling books have anything to do with it? I don’t know. I just find the contradiction here quite telling- the man who gets all the attention for casting doubt on the text of the Bible, upon further review, doesn’t really doubt it himself.
PreacherJimC Some variations really matter. Not all are spelling issues.
Just because Metzger and Ehrman would largely agree on the content of the original, that does not mean they would automatically be correct and even if they were, how could they know? I doubt that agreement between these two would form a general consensus anyways.
I would believe that Erhman is enjoying books sales even if he sold his soul to have it.
@@bumpinugly4985 Perhaps, But the point stands that Erhman, the would-be champion and crutch for those who reject Christianity in this milieu clings to a contradictory position.
@@SugoiEnglish1 wrong, Ehrman views are rather mainstream among biblical scholars most of whom are Christian themselves. Ie Martin. Many protestants reject his views out of hand and presume anti Christian bias when in fact they are guilty of their own bias. Again Ehrman's views as presented in his popular presentations, are for the most part authored by Christians. If these facts make you uncomfortable then simply move on, no one is forcing you to watch or change your mind.
Awesome, this is what I’ve been looking for. Shame about the audio
I love Ehrmans honesty, knowledge and his ability to transmit historical information in an interesting and accurate manner. An amazing human being. A joy to listen to.
honesty? what a joke!
Why does Dr. Wallace think the fact that there are large numbers of N.T manuscripts compared to classical manuscripts matter? After all nobody considers Classical manuscripts "the word of God" if an all powerful God inspired the words of NT writers, why did he not preserve the originals, or by garbling, and distorting them does God have a different reason for doing so?
It was Mary Fairchild who in that quote called Luke the Evangelist "a medical doctor."
Was Luke a doctor as we now understand that term? It is hard to say.
The perception of Luke as a medical doctor comes from Paul's letter to the Colossians in which Paul speaks of Luke in this way - "Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas."
Colossians 4:14
This term may have meant medical doctor or it may have simply referred to Luke as a highly educated man.
I can't tell for sure, but I get the impression that Dr. Wallace is the kind of person who, if he ever discovered that an important part of the NT was wholly unreliable, then his whole world would come tumbling down.
Bravo! Great presentation by Dr. Daniel Wallace.
We may have a lot of manuscripts but which is the original. It is no possible to differentiate and tell which is the right one.
I really enjoyed this debate. Both speakers have valid points. What I got out of it is that no matter who you think 'won' the Bible seems to have been written by man and not God.
Simply because the original autographa of the New Testament documents are not currently extant does not mean we have lost the "original New Testament." Accurate scribal copies functioned then and now as valid and perfectly acceptable versions of the originals.
Also the fact that there are "400,000" differences among texts is misleading in the extreme. The bulk of those differences are minor spelling variations, not one of them affecting in any significant way the story of Christ and his gospel.
You are also wrong when you write that Luke copied his gospel some other original.
Luke never said that. He wrote, "since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account."
Luke's gospel was an original, written after extensive historical research, including talking with those involved in the life of Christ. Jewish law states that the testimony of 2 or 3 people establishes the truth of a matter. In the gospels we have four accounts.
very informative debate. i can't wait until Dr. Wallace's findings are published.
Interesting topic, two knowledgeable men, but a format that leaves much to be desired. Rather than have Erhman and Wallace take the podium and alternately ask and answer (or not) each other's questions, why not just have them sit at their respective tables for the remaining time and have a dialog? Would have been smoother, more informative and less time consuming. Also, poor job by the moderator, who should have at least read the questions before asking them to screen out the dumb ones. Most of the ones that got asked were pretty dumb, and I'll bet there were much better ones that he didn't bother to look at.
Actually there is a way to rebuild much of the text and at the same time ensure the integrity of the interpretations. A large majority of these texts can be found in hermetic literature, the writings of Plato, the Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, The Zohar and the Torah, etc. There are so many texts to choose from that contain similar writings especially about the nature of Christ. Yet, we cannot have such heresy can we? For only the books chosen by the Catholic church and INTERPRETED by them (IMPORTANT) is the only viable option.
For example, crucifixion has a double meaning and the place of crucifixion is in Golgotha (Aramaic: Place of the skull). Yet the church's interpretation is literal. Even the Jews will tell you much of the first five books of the Bible are coded in esoteric language, yet the church has given literal meanings to Adam and Eve, the apple, the serpent, etc...
Second example, the Christ is mentioned in Collossians 1:15 as the first visible image of the invisible God. The first begotten and first born over all creation. This also agrees with the Jewish mysteries, the Gnostic texts, and the understanding of the Adam Kadmon. Yet, the mainstream modern interpretation tells people it can only be the historical Jesus and the other is left completely out even though it agrees with ancient cultures around the world.
If you want to know what really happened, you do a comparative analysis across cultures, find the similar texts/stories, and post all of them from every culture side by side and compare and analyze. You would be a an investigator... but then that would just tear people's worlds apart if something turned out to be different than originally thought... and we cannot have that can we? No, we must have the politically correct option and the option best for the church...lol... or... are we ready for truth seeking finally in 2014?! mmmm?
Well said thank you Danny. I find that the more I read, the more I read... It is fascinating reading the Story in all its myriad forms; enlightening rather. The Zohar and the Talmud are the foundations of the Bible, most Christians have never heard of either let alone read them. And I highly doubt that they would know anything about there actually being two Talmud's the original and Ezra's Babylonian forgery.
It is amazing how much research there is in this field to discover for the diligent searcher, yet most of its scholars, who have given their life's works to posterity in order that the ancient ways may not be lost, have never been heard of in modern times, for example, Eliphas Lévi, Evelyn Underhill, Athanasius, H.P. Blavatsky, Pico Mirandola, Agrippa, Hermes, Pythagoras, Simon Magus, Paracelsus, etc. etc...
Hopefully, and I think I will be proved right here, the future will be different and these monoliths will once again be erected in the forum and celebrated as they deserve to be.
Danny, I have a theory, based upon evidence and experimentation but I think Christ = Holy Spirit = Covenant / Human Body = Arc = Carrier
Therefore, the Arc of the Covenant is truly the Human being, and the Covenant is Holy Spirit flowing through our "living water" aka our blood.
I have done a ton of research along this vein and am 100% confident in my statements and will debate with anyone, anytime, anywhere concerning these matters.
I figured you may be one of the only people who would appreciate such a thought at this early juncture of Christs return (or the return of high vibration energy and Christ consciousness among the people) it will literally be a golden age when everyone is capable of being independent (physically, spiritually, and mentally) of the Beast!
Once we all start using all of our minds and seeing things as they are rather than what we want or have to have them be... yes.... Interesting perspective on Christ...
It came to me through intuition and deduction based on the basic Hermetic axiom of correspondence.
I also discovered that certain plants (i.e. entheogens, aka the 'mysteries') are also carriers or Arcs of the Covenant (actually, I suppose, when thinking of it, everything [living] which is imbued with Spirit is technically an Arc of the Covenant!) but thinking that the plant itself, or any material thing like the body is to be worshiped is the same as worshiping the golden calf, it is but a symbol of the Spirit it contains.
However, it is through the plants that we can unlock the hidden dormant parts of our Consciousness and thus realize our own inner Christs, and then, we can finally begin to live as Nietzsche's 'Overmen' instead of the 'Lastmen' we are becoming.
p.s. I hope this was half intelligible, but I am trying to do a few other things, however I do care that you hear this message, Charity, Grace and Peace.
I think plants,.etc are fine if used for what they are supposed to be used for. I also think that a person should gain a certain foundation and understanding and way of thinking before their use. There are many people out there that want to use them as an excuse for consciousness but they do not offer this. They assist with whatever someone brings to the table to begin with. If that person does not bring a certain attitude and way of thinking to the table, they will just trip people out... (my opinion) Peace :)
Since you are not an historian I don't expect you to understand the nature of the ancient scribal tradition, so let me explain.
Copies of documents were considered to be identical to originals and with the same value, as we see in accurate Torah scrolls in modern Jewish synagogues which cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce.
The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) found in Cave 1 at Qumran is identical to the earliest Masoretic copy of Isaiah, even though they are separated by 1,000 years.
The already existing Christians that Paul wrote to were mainly Jewish concerts. So their already existing scriptures were OT. Also it was huge in Judaism to learn scriptures by heart from Rabbis. So the NT most likely existed before it was ever written down.
I do wish Ehrman wouldn't shout so much, it's kind of tiring to listen to.
jaxxstraw it's supposed to wake you up
Those wild, unbridled scribes.... Militant calligraphers!!
One thing about Dan Wallace argument is this if God inspired the actual words of the NT why did he not preserve every word of it? or does he only have the ability to inspire but not the ability preserve , if so then is he not all powerful? Another is what does it matter how many copies of secular works from the past we have or how old they are ? Nobody considers them "The Word Of God"
Extremely distorted, where can I hear a better audio?
Sorry if this is stated somewhere and I missed it, what was the date of this discussion? Thanks!
I agree, very bad audio. I think Bart makes very good points from books he has written years ago. That is part of the reason I am a non believer. That being said, you cannot beat the four horsemen.
Dinesh D'souza beat Daniel Dennett
John Lennox beat Richard Dawkins
William Lane Craig beat the other two.
The Four Horsemen are very, very easy to beat.
Dinesh? Lol, check out TMM's channel. He completely deconstructs him.
A mathematician beats a biologist in an philosophical discussion where the question is unverifieable. Has science beat the existence of an unverifiable, immaterial entity? No! It could exist. Does that mean it actually exists? We don't know. And that sums up the discussion between Dawkins and Lennox. Admittedly, Dawkins is a terrible debater.
William Lane Craig doesn't beat anyone - he reads up his 5 points of Kalam, fine-tuning, morality, the ontological argument and the inner witness of the holy spirit. Then, when the opponent lays out his view in the first round (which isn't meant to be used to refute the first speaker, that's the second part of the debate) he proclaims that the opponent didn't address any of his points and he takes that as a victory and so does his fans. He is a skilled debater, but the arguments for anyone who has looked deeper in to them *knows* that they are *dishonest.*
Dyers
@@TBOTSS you are delusional.
@John wayne Ah four crying horsemen. How appropriate.
Dr. Ehrman was great, detailed and precise. Very educational :)
We can certainly say that the original NT is lost. Paul, in his letters, which he wrote bfore any of the Gospels were writ, speaks of a written scripture at the time of his writing. He speaks of a Gospel already preached to every creature which is under heaven. He tells us that even then, at the time he wrote, some had swerved,had turned aside unto vain jangling..This bfore any of the Gospels of Matt Mark Luke and John had been written. Paul tells us that Christ died and rose again, according to the scriptures. He is probly referring to the Apochryphal Scriptures here, because this is before the version of NT we have was writ. It appears that Matt Mark Luke and John were not witness to events they relate but are rewriting from an earlier script. Probly none of the Gospel writers actually knew each other, and wrote their version of the Jesus story for a particular church, probly widely separated.
The Apochryphal Gospels are certainly the root of the Jesus story as we know it.
It was later, as one sect of Cult of Jesus became more powerful than the others, that the NT as we know it came into existence. It was then that some sects were suppressed, their scriptures destroyed.
The Roots of Religious Intolerance run Deep...
Paul did not write before the gospels..
He was persecuting the Christian community while Jesus was preaching in the temple.
When Paul speaks of a gospel he means the message preached by himself and others, not a written account.
And when he refers to resurrection according to scriptures he means the scriptures accepted by the judaism of his day, interpreted loosely and unhistorically as predictions and types of Christ.
@@richardlambert7159
History isn't interested in loose interpretation
@@richardlambert7159
I would seriously doubt that since he quotes the septuagent
I watched another lecture by dan wallace. What he concluded was that all the essential principles is consistent from older doctrine, I am an atheist but the argument that Jesus being changed from man to god in later doctrine doesn't hold up with the doctrine we have. If we choose to believe or not comes down to faith
@Gary Wersley I guess I was responding to you. I dont see how you connect already existing church to lost scriptures. When Paul set up those churches what did he use. The OT. Then as he wrote the letters they were considered scripture as 2 Peter tells us
Sounds like the christians Dungeon Masters Guide is not reliable.
Dumb.
Sounds like it is because it's lead me to life through tumultuous and chaotic times where I could perish (spiritually and literally) by straying to my left or right. I don't think a fraud could have done that.
thebullybuffalo You should give yourself more credit. And give superstition and imaginary gods less credit. By the way, your spirit was never in peril, because it does not exist.
Hawaiisidecar Superstition and imaginary gods? What in Christ's name are you talking about?
Jason Wills Religion = superstition. Jesus = imaginary gods. It is not that hard to figure out really.
Go do more research if you think the bible is filled with contradictions. Right now. From legitimate theologians. Preferably people who have studied Greek. Wallace is a good start. I've not seen more ignorance in the saying "the bible is filled with contradictions" Actually study it, swallow your pride, and at least be open to the ideas and not completely rejecting any answer
No, you swallow your pride and realize that you aren't the special creation of some invisible sky daddy. The universe cares not for you.
+Robert Livingston Actually swallow YOUR pride and stop thinking you know better than the creator of the universe. The objection to God is never intellectual. It is always moral
Robert Livingston assuming that the universe cares preassumes--on your part that a universal being, whom you call "sky daddy" exists thus begging the question.. Does a universal being pehaps.. exist that can "not care"?
The fool has said in his heart that there's no God.
any book that claims to be from god, that book should be free of contradiction . the bible is full of contraditions
There are no contradictions in the bible, whatsoever. There are only claims of errors.
for u to say there is no contradictions in the bible, u must be brain dead
Mike Jones no. I have personally be presented with dozens of alleged discrepancies and have been able to prove them all bogus. Most are just from people too lazy to read the actual text or just plain trying to force a contradiction .
Intellectual elite have tried to show up the bible for centuries and almost all ended their journey as Christians.
Brilliant skeptics in every generation who have converted to Christianity largely on the basis of their trying to prove contradictions and historical errors are -Augustine, George Lyttleton and Gilbert West, Cyril Joad, John Warwick Montgomery, C.S. Lewis, Frank Morison, Sir William Ramsay, Malcolm Muggeridge, Lew Wallace, Lee Strobel, and on and on. For Bible critics to be right, such men must be either naive or fools. The fact that critics and skeptics have done so poorly over the ages says more than they are willing to concede. Ps. The men mentioned can not be labeled as fools. Check out who they are. The cream of Intellectuals over centuries. I challenge you to check it out.
***** in stead of watching youtube, why don't you read the bible yourself. Most so called discrepancies suddenly don't exist at all. If it gets a bit intellectual, just Google it. They are mostly all answered on the net as well. Don't be lazy.
All so called discrepancies have been answered for over a thousand years before you arrived on the scene and a few hundred years before Muhamed rocked up.
Don't you know Muhamed told Christians to judge by the Injeel.
i have not read the bible lately, but i read it many times in the past. it didnt make any sense to me than and iam sure its not going to make any sense now. i have been reading the quarn lately and i must say it has my full attention,
Imo, a more important issue would be: If we did have verified original copies of the NT, where does that get us?
Dr. Erhman has addressed many aspects of this issue in his book: Jesus BEFORE the Gospels. The reality is that the Gospels are unreliable even in the best case where we have the originals.
Not to put too fine a point on it but Faustus was a Manichean, not a Christian. Those were two entirely separate religions, Manichaeism being a religion that combined various Gnostic heresies with the teachings of Mani a 3rd century Persian religious teacher.
The fact that Faustus was considered a "bishop" among the Manicheans means nothing in relation to the Christian episcopacy. Therefore his opinions about the origins of the NT documents are entirely irrelevant to any discussion about the NT.
Historian vs an apologist.
Ehrman likes to play the telephone game with supposed copies of scripture. I have argued that the early followers of Jesus were Jewish and many of them were capable of writing because Jewish people had scribes for making copies of scripture. His representation of the telephone game is cute but does not reflect copying procedures among the Jewish people. If they had Marks gospel they likely would have made numerous copies at the same time. One person reading the text and others writing it down. Then they would have read one of the copies as others followed along checking for mistakes. The Jews knew how to make accurate copies. Bart's way of claiming errors from copies just does not represent how copies were made by scribes. He should have listended to his old teacher Bruce Metzger better instead of being trendy by becoming a skeptic to sell books.
***** You are a head case. I point out the flaws in an argument and you can't handle it. Skeptic reasoning always comes up short of accuracy.
***** Your only plan is to make personal attacks and ridicule people. I studied how scribes worked to make copies in seminary and my points are completely valid. So don't waste your time name calling to try to divert people from the fact that the manuscripts of scriptural texts are very reiable.
Except you run into a major problem: you bring up the Gospels but Jewish authorship cannot be ascribed to any Gospel. based on any manuscripts we have: everything is in Greek. Not a single text written in Hebrew nor Aramaic have been found. Not only in Greek but in the Gospels written using very Greek writing styles i.e. Matthew being written entirely in Chiastic structures.
Even everything we have from Paul are all in Greek.
You are engaging in apologetics which is making shit up to fit a doctrine: not anything historians take seriously but only fundies.
The Gooch Are you aware that under Alexander The Great who ruled all that area at one time prior to the rise of Rome everyone under Alexander were taught Greek. He sought to Helenize all people's with Greek culture. So Greek was well known by the Jews becasue they were forced to learn it. Therefore it was not a problem to use Greek for the gospels, in fact it was the perfect language for the spread of the gospel to all the known world because all would know Greek. So this argument is not valid. Also Mark was the companion of Peter and therefore of Hebrew origin (Peter being a Jew). John was also a Jew and close follower of Jesus. Gospels were also written to reach out to the gentile world. But the fact remains that the process for scribes to go by meant accuracy first and foremost. Ehrman ignores this fact and brings disrespect to his teachers and other renowned scholars in the field of manuscript evidences.
Ronald Kelly
Then why are no 2 manuscripts the same? Nothing here is actually controversial. The results seem to contradict your assertion. Everyone who has read the manuscripts will tell you mistakes are all over the manuscripts. This is not something Dr Erhman is alone in, this is the *consensus*
Now onto history: you obviously don't have the first clue on how things were:
Only elites knew Greek, which makes sense for Paul but not for the others.
People in the Roman province of Galilee spoke Aramaic, literacy rates were not high, some knew Hebrew.
Judea, more people spoke and wrote in Hebrew with elites like the Pharisees knowing Greek which was common throughout the Roman Empire: only the highly educated knew Greek. To say otherwise goes against everything historians know about the 1st Century CE. This is *historical consensus*
You treat Jews like they were somehow different from other Roman provinces. They weren't.
Herodotus, Wallace says is "about 1/2 a millenium" later thats 500 years. Slide/caption guys botched it and put "Herodotus: 1500 years" (video time: 55:09)... just wanted to clear up the confusion there.
What was the mss Wallace mentioned the details of which would be released in a year?
Nice edit at 24:28 Bartie - you must have had second thoughts on your statement. How are we to trust that the Bart Ehrman diatribe that we hear today on RUclips is the ORIGINAL Bart Ehrman diatribe of 2010!?
Truth For Saints Good point. By examining it.
Does anyone know what the book is called that Daniel Wallace is referring to?
I would like to hear a detailed lecture about how the early church fathers show the consistency and reliability of the NT text.
Well, I cannot see your entire comment for some reason. However, what I gather is that you disagree with his comment about the Ancient manuscripts regarding history. He is comparing the criticism of the biblical manuscript to the NON criticism of the secular manuscripts. Try to keep up....
Was the title on the screen "Surving Copies" a deliberate spelling mistake to prove a point?
I really wish that this video had subtitles. It would make it so much easier to understand.
When an honest man discovers that he has been mistaken, he now has a choice to make; stop the mistake or stop being honest.
Why would you edit the video by cutting out what Dr. Wallace was going to say at 1:14:57? Why? He was going to mention a Papyrologist - most likely Thiede. So, again, why would you just arbitrarily cut that out?
Vincwent Van Gogh painted the Potato eaters several times till he was happy with it, but they are all recognized as the same scene. So what if Luke wrote 2 editions, maybe he did further research after his 1st draft and then wrote a more researched version- duh people do that today. EVEN BART will propably end up with more than one edition (republication w updates) of his books. Doesn't mean EITHER version is wrong. (im leaving typso in on purpose Im sure you all can figur out wqhat imeant.
Mr Bart Ehrman, how did they get those manuscripts. Did they copy from the original or it just came out of nowhere?
Every single verse I gave you is a reference Jesus made to the "son of man" in Dan7:13-14 (especially Mark14:62) who comes on the clouds,sits at the right hand of God,and receives all dominion as being himself.Most all commentaries/scholars recognize this, and the High Priest in Mark14:61-64 recognized it as well.Also,if you study pre-Christian rabbinic writings/commentaries,they all understood the figure in Dan7:13-14 as a God-like figure on par with YHWH himself. Jesus claimed it was himself.
You are correct. Paul's word is not God's word and that is by Paul's own admission.
“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” -Jesus
This is a very important question to me and to others: do these differences in text affect at all whether or not Jesus actually said, "In the resurrection there is NO MARRIAGE"? Is it at all possible that these thousands of differences changed what Jesus was trying to say about marriage in the afterlife? Many MANY people want to believe that they will have a soulmate in heaven-and LDS doctrine is based on marriage in the afterlife. Is there any evidence to support that Jesus said we WILL?
I cannot help but wonder, at what point after the resurrection/rapture does Bart Ehrman start pounding his head on his desk and saying "I should have listen, I should have listened I should have listened"
I heard Bart Ehrman express nothing but conjecture after conjecture after conjecture.
Ehrmann is just a sensationalist out to make a buck out of being controversial.If we use his criteria to judge History there would be no History.Wallace clearly won this debate.
I am also wondering why the name of the papyrologist was cut out.
I thought the moderator should have been more prepared when he was asking questions from the audience. I wish he would have asked the question do any of the differences undermine the Christian faith. It was asked in the question but he never asked it. I would say that is a very major point. Did Christ die and come back to life after three days. Did he claim to be God etc.
Dave Neipp Both Ehrman and Wallace said during their introductory speeches that none of the textual variations affect any core Christian doctrine. So this was addressed and attested to by both of them.
Because if they ARE polluted to the point we cannot get to an original, then there exists no manuscript that is reliable from the time periods in question. It would then be an impossibility for anyone to say "we know 100% of what happened to/with ___fill in the blank___in that time frame". Does this make sense?
what is the music intro?
AFTER LISTENING TO BOTH EXPERTS- THE NT IS SOMEHTING SPECIAL COMPAREDT TO ALL OTHER BOOKS FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD
I do love Ehrman - when he knows his stuff - he is a clear thinker (as long as he stays away from exegesis re which he is not exactly a scholar ...;-) )
This is my new favorite debate, Hands down!
but doesn't that very phrase suggest that there were things existing that were not made ? or is it just someone loving the sound of his own voice.
Irenaeus wrote, "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ..." We have Polycarp's letter to the Philippians in which he makes reference to or quotes many of NT books. Check it out: "Polycarp to the Philippians A Translation Rick Brannan"
when i see this video..i do noticed that Dr. Wallace pointing and dealing about many greek manuscripts...
wasn't Jesus talking in Aramaic....and there were also bible in Aramaic . Should't he also put in his radar about source of Aramaic manuscripts?
evidently, you've twisted his words, Wallace said "assume" not "pretend." You are reading into his statement what isn't there. And, if you hear Wallace's side to the debate, you'll see that the assumption he speaks of has reasonable grounds!
"Pretend", on the other hand, would imply that Wallace thinks its not real, but, if you know anything about him, you'd see this is clearly not the case.
Your statement is misleading, and dishonest; an attempt to put words in his mouth.
This is an excellent format for understanding an important issue. Congratulations.
If you do choose to investigate the vital writings of the Church Fathers pay close attention to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons who wrote that the Apostle John was the author of the Gospel of John, which Irenaeus learned from his teacher Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna who learned that from his studies with John himself.
There is an unbroken chain of knowledge that extends from Jesus to his Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers and through them to our present day, all without a single break in the chain.
Why hasn't Dan said anything about the mark fragment since this time?
nick albano it's still being analyzed. I think it will be published by the 2020.
I find it irritating that the moderator chose to paraphrase questions sent by those in attendance. Shouldn't he have read the "original texts"? One of these questions was phrased, "Dr. Wallace, do these [inconsistencies] undermine the Christian faith?" The moderator says instead "Dr. Wallace how do you respond to the Luke controversy?" Yes, we still have trouble with scholars getting access to "original text"!
"The reason we have a lot of textual variants is because we have a lot of manuscripts." - Wallace
"As more and more manuscripts come to light, we are getting closer and closer to the wording of the original." - Wallace
So, the more variants that are discovered will provide a better look at what was originally written?
This was the dream and I hope Wallace gave up in 2021.
If we actually had the original of any gospel how would you know it?
Would Dr Wallace dare use the arguments he does for the bible for the validity of other texts? I doubt it. But I do bet the Dr Ehrman would be consistent in his application of criticism regardless of the book.
If we don't have any of the early documents, how can we be so sure about their existence and structure? If you try to reconstruct them just from the words in the bible, this process seems pretty iffy.
You are making a different argument here. No one is arguing "who said" what, or "who was the first to say or do" what. I don't know of anyone who doubts that Thales was the first philosopher of the Greek tradition for example. The argument is about manuscripts and their reliability (including authorship) as to the original accounts of historical events, not who was the first mathematician lol. There are those on both sides of the isle on this issue, hence the positions argued.
Actually, Max, they are. Ehrman explained this in the debate. And where is it in Plato et al where one's fate is determined by whether they believe what the author has written? Where does Plato, e.g, make an impossible claim that historians accept? Age and quantity only speak to certain things. A book written 30 to 60 years after an event is certainly significant, but historians don't then turn and insist that this book is an accurate portrayal of the event without any more inquiry. examples?
Well, you tld me that there is no source to validate the historic Jesus outside the NT. So, if that is true, then how can a scholar like Bart Ehrman, a skeptic, claim that Jesus was "certainly crucified"? If He did not use the NT documentation as a reliable source of info to gather info about the historic Jesus, then I'd like to know what documentation he looked at considering you claimed there is none outside of the NT.
On Serapis, 1st, it's quoted in this supposed letter from Hadrian, written around 134 A.D. We don't have any part of that letter. The earliest mention of it comes from a quotation by Flavius Vopiscus (c. 300 A.D.), who in turn is said to be quoting Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian. " chain of evidence. Walter Bauer, a liberal scholar who felt no need to support orthodox Christianity, said the letter is of "uncertain value" and regards it as "spurious." (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity).
Is it just me or is the sound quality terrible
"there is no mention of philosophers" ... like I said, chapter 17:18-20 clearly shows that among the greeks in the crowds, when Paul preached, were philosophers. And recall I said Paul got mixed reviews. You cherry-picked the "babbler" part and glossed over the fact that others wanted to hear MORE from him, including those that later FOLLOWED him (17:34).
"philosophy destroys faith"
William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, et al, would seriously disagree with that.
'Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up."
Dei Verbum, Second Vatican Council
Read the earliest Church Fathers as they describe the apostolic authorship of the four gospels.
The main theme of what Jesus Christ was preaching is still in the the gospels.
Here's the interesting part: Most people overlook it. And in doing so, they just take whatever they're told by family/friends/preachers/religious ministry with blind faith.
Poor souls. The truth is right there, but they just walk right past it.
May God Almighty guide people to open their eyes and bring them out of their sleepwalking through life.
10 million reasons not to pay attention to apologists. I guess he didn't listen too well to Bart's monologue.
Because then we know there was never an authority or organization in charge of the text. If there was then the question would be how do we know this group didn't change the text for themselves. The variants help show that this wasn't the case. The variants don't affect doctrine or overall context which Bart Erhman admits.
The audio is poor on this video.
When I say: "I throw the banana out of the window" what do I mean?
When I emphasize "I", I mean: it was me, not him. When I emphasize the word "throw" I mean: I did not drop it. When I emphasize the word "banana" I mean: I did not throw an apple. Where is my original text? Words can be ambiguous by themselves and their meaning is given by the context.
This first century manuscript mentioned late in the video "to be published next year" . . . did that ever surface? A quick google search is not bringing up anything promising. Any one have any news?
larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/a-first-century-copy-of-the-gospel-of-mark/
audio very bad.
Can't hear anything but buzzing
Does anyone know what was edited out from Dr. Ehrman's talk at around 24:27?
Why is there no cross examination?
"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judae,Pontius Pilate."Bart Ehraman-The New Testament:An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pp.261-262
"There are some things we can say for certain really happened,I think.I think we can say for certain that Jesus was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate...he was crucified certainly we can say that."
Where did Bart get his info in not the NT?
Does knowing everything include knowing which choices someone will make of its free-will, or knowing which choices it could and the results of each choice? You can say that he should know, but I say it is like saying there is a such thing as square circle. It's not the limited power of a shape that prevents it from being self-contradicting, it's the lack of logic behind such an idea. What makes you think he doubted or tested them? Gen says he warned them. They didn't know death, then, they did.
Dan Wallace's final comment suggested that if we can't presume that we have the original text, then we will fall back into the Dark Ages. That's just ridiculous.
you obviously missed the big fact that he mentioned when he said there is NO question that we do not have the originals, so much for god preserving the texts of the original authors after "inspiring" them.
2Peter2. tells that at time of writing there were already many different variations of the Jesus story.
"But there were many false prophets also among the people".Perhaps referring to GnosticChristians,who probly also had written Gospels?Writer of this letter claims to have been witness to events,he claims to have been present during the event described at Mark1:11.Appearance of Jesus on banks of RiverJordan.
HeavenlyVioce..This writer wrote against heresies so soon after the supposed events?