Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace Debate Original NT Lost?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 фев 2015
- Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace held one of five debates on February 1st, 2012 at 7:00 PM, located in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Memorial Hall Performing Arts Theater. Bart and Daniel discussed the origins, transmission, and reliability of the New Testament in an event called "Is the Original New Testament Lost?" The format was a 30-minute opener from each professor, followed by two rounds of 5-minute responses to the other. Then, questions from the floor and, finally, a one-minute closing statement from each professor.
Miles O’Neill was the moderator and the debate was sponsored by the Ehrman Project, which Miles leads. Over 1000 people were in attendance.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=8529
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.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman, Daniel B. Wallace and Ehrman Project. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman, Daniel B. Wallace, and Ehrman Project is strictly prohibited.
![Young Nudy - John Wayne (feat. Metro Boomin) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NY8HnYYo2fo/mqdefault.jpg)
It seems to be a very interesting debate. Too bad that the quality of the audio turned out to be too low for my understanding of english.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". John Stuart Mill.
You listened to this debate and what you most got out of it is a belief Dr. Wallace only argues for his positions so he can get paid...? Surely there are easier ways to make a living, and more lucrative ones as well.
That's Bart Ehrman is a nutshell....
Explains both of these guy sadly ;) both profit from their professions.
however, if both guys changed their minds on the subject, their books in which they professed why and how, would be best sellers. So I don't think it's an issue
@@harbourhaven "sadly?"
What is wrong with a man getting paid to work?
Debate starts at 7:40.
Debate???? lol
Thank you so much for posting this! I always look forward to your debates, I'm a huge fan!
You had one job: record the debate! But noooooowa!
Why does Ehrman assume that earliest manuscripts were copies of copies? Just because we don't have the originals doesn't mean that the early scribes didn't. It's actually quite logical to assume that they probably still had access to the original a mere 100 years after the fact. Therefore it's disingenuous to insist that all manuscripts were copies of copies. It seems more logical to assume that there were tons of copies of the original rather tons of copies of copies. At least for the first several hundred years.
Dan Wallace emphasized the value of the high number of Greek MSS we have today; but don't most scholars reject the 'variant readings' found in the great bulk of MSS, in favor of only a few favorites? Is Wallace any different?
Does anyone know what came of the first century manuscript about which Dr. Wallace spoke?
12:07 Urquelle/ Original Text?
17:08 *2. Corinthians* "... spliced together... "
19:07 "... it was argued that ... around the year 100 some editor came along and collected the letters of Saint Paul into one Manuscript..."
28:21 "... manuscripts..."
30:43 "... How many differences are there?.. 1707... John Mill... "
32:14 "... There are more differences in our Manuscripts than there are words in the new Testament..."
36:57 "... Lots and lots and lots of copies of the New Testament... What we don't have are lots of early copies... reliable manuscripts..."
37:37 "... What does 'the original text' even mean?.. Where are the early manuscripts?.. Why can't scholars agree?..."
41:28 Wallace
43:25 Two Attitudes: King James only! / we really don't know... ;)
57:07 "We have at least three times more New Testament manuscripts today, that were written in the first 200 years of the composition of the New Testament, than the average greco-roman author has in 2000 years. ... To argue that we don't have many manuscripts from the first 100 years is only true in relation to later New Testament manuscripts..."
1:05:16 "It would be a mistake to think that the uncontrolled copying practices tat led to the formation of the Western textual tradition were followed everywhere that texts were reproduced in the Roman Empire. In particular there's solid evidence that in at least one major see[sic?] of early Christendom, the city of Alexandria, there was conscious and conscientious control exercised in the copying of the books of the New Testament. Textual witnesses connected to Alexandria attest a high quality of textual transmission [from] the earliest times..."
1:07:00 *P75* // _Urquelle?_
1:09:21 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
1:11:49 "The differences are so trivial that they can't even be be translated..."
1:13:37 "... several very early fragments of the Testament..."
1:15:14 "... a leap of faith where the guard rail should have been..."
1:17:00 Ehrman, responding
1:23:14 Wallace, again
1:23:42 2nd Corinthians
2:28:49 Ehrman
1:39:37 "... texted-in questions..."
1:47:07 "... game of telephone..."
Thank you.
This comment needs to be at the very top! WELL DONE.
Bart Ehrman's definition of radical is a bit deceptive. It refers to the extremity of the viewpoint not to the number of people who hold said viewpoint. He used his nuanced definition to give himself the chance to continue to cry, "scholars agree." So instead of trying to allow his arguments to stand on the merit of his evidence and reasoning, he tried to infer if you don't agree with him, you are not agreeing with the smartest people on the subject. If you listen throughout this debate. Ehrman appeals over and over again to scholars and Wallace to evidence.
Actually radical simply means root, to be radical means no more than to get to the root of the problem.
AUDIO NOTE !!!
TRY HEADPHONES
The scrambling audio distortion disappeared.
(Ear buds might do the same thing )
Daniel Wallace is pretty impressive.
I think he is dishonest to him self at best.
-"I lost my keys"
-"no you didn't lose them, they are at your house or in your car or at your office......mixed with a huge pile of keys".
Army Mobility Officer.... I thought, as always, Ehrman was brilliant. A remarkable scholar.
@Benjamin Figgins A response someone else wrote to a similar comment:
"He didn't lie. He was very much misinformed via a trusted source and admitted to it and apologized correcting his statement. In this video it's clear that Dan put great rust in him with his evidence... You sound angsty. Chill."
Both Wallace and Ehrman had a good debate performance, and your attempt to disregard Wallace's segment because of a publicity mistake shows your lack of respect for serious scholarship, and that you've decided who you thought the winner of this debate was before you even watched it.
Army Mobility Officer yes he is
Video starts at 7:30
fascinating debate....
What is better: to look at a issue from one point of view, and have it explained in one way only, or as seen from more than one point of view and explained in more than one way? What will give the most comprehensive understanding of the issue?
It depends on the accuracy of both sides. Ehrman makes much ado about nothing to borrow from Shakespeare. When you twist information to make your case, you don't add to the sum total of knowledge, you subtract from it. You muddy the waters.
Anyone know what book Wallace was talking about that was coming out soon?
The manuscript was eventually published and it wasn't first century. The whole thing turned into a massive fiasco and scandal you should just look up First Century Mark or Dirk Obbink (the guy at the center of the scandal).
"Epistemological humility" is GREAT MOTTO. Bravo.
I found the opening quote of Mat. 24:36, very telling on how things might go, in this debate. The majority of Scholars wouldn't deny it was doubted, in being part of the original book of Matthew. I wonder why he didn't mention Mark 13:32? that verse isn't questioned by most, as it being original. Mark 13:32 NET ""But as for that day or hour no one knows it--neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son--except the Father." I hope the rest of this is going to worthwhile. Finishing with it soon.
Papyrus in wet conditions can hardly survive longer than 300 years (say 500). Romans used parchment for official documents, but it would have been too expensive for normal people. And it should have been difficult to gather so many papyri too. The most common medium should have been leather. How many people was able to write and read especially in Greek in ancient times (apart from monks)? How many of them could afford the use of so large amount of papyri?
The manuscript mentioned by Dr. Wallace, after all, was published?
No, it still has not been published yet.
@Phil Patterson you were never a christian.
Torturous audio. Almost unbearable audio. Painful audio!
After watching the debate i read the comments and is just curious as to how ppl thought dr wallace won this debate. Were we watching the same debate?
Ehrman equivocates (really, really obviously) in a number of places. See, e.g., 1:20:53. "...would you seriously think that that would be better than having 5,000 copies that didn't disagree at all?" Well, no. Obviously not. What Wallace was saying was that it would be better than having one copy, which is what we have for the overwhelming majority of texts from the era.
Frankly, I do not trust a man who tries to trick his audience in that way. He is intellectually dishonest.
Let me guess...you´re not a Christian, probably an atheist or at least an ¨agnostic.¨ What a surprise that you´re dazed and confused concerning how that ¨ppl¨ concluded that Wallace won the debate. Bias is a strong mind-controller. But I´m sure you´re not _biased_...now...are you?
D-iz ballin where do you stand with Jesus¿
@1:15:00 The papyrus fragment of Mark he references has yet to be published...wonder why?
Is that sarcasm or are you genuinely curious?
It was published it just turned out not to be from the first century.
Dr Wallace wrap up.." We have to assume, for progress sakes" when people base their lives on the bible especially here in Africa where it is taken literally. Can we assume things? From Nairobi. Kenya
1:49:00 this is from 2011 where's this 1st century manuscript?
He didn't lie. He was very much misinformed via a trusted source and admitted to it and apologized correcting his statement. In this video it's clear that Dan put great rust in him with his evidence... You sound angsty. Chill.
@@Heretical_Theology I see a lot of bitter people commenting about that manuscript, acting as if it means Wallace's entire academic career should be tossed in the trash.
16:00 - Assumption that Paul did not communicate with his scribe(s). One could argue the scribe made a mistake but there is no evidence of this. Similarly there is no evidence to suggest Paul didn't have the scribe read to him upon completion. Nor is there evidence of many other scenarios one might propose.
Wallace is pretty comprehensive, his arguments are sound. One of those debates that rests on definitions, grey areas
He is irrational and dishonest to himself. He needs to accepted the common usage of the word "lose".
He claims that the original NT is not lost....its somewhere in a huge pile of scripts....and we don't have a way to verify which version is the one....
This is what the word "lose" means...
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Wallace made more sense than Ehrman, get over it.
Manne facts
@@manne8575 lol
@@manne8575
No proof no Manuscripts!
Get lost!
You lost!
It's a credit to you for posting this debate. Since the differences between you seem to boil down to matters Christological, which were hotly contested for the next three centuries of the Eastern Roman empire, I wonder if a more substantive debate around Christology and the syncretic formation of Christianity from a textual basis could occur-- not the least of which being the trinity. The matter is not the differences as you both state, but the significant differences in the doctrine which reflects multiple origins.
Time to debate on the Dead Sea scrolls.
Professor Ehrman, I thank you for your work as a scholar, debater, and as a collegiate professor. That being said, I have been debating whether or not to go back to seminary and continue, as an agnostic atheist, instruction on history, the languages of the bible, epistemology, textual criticism and the like. I truly wish to understand the bible from its texts and be capable of examining them in such a manner. Again, thank you for all that you do.
Joshua Ciresoli
The folks at ehrmanproject . com are more likely to give you an answer. They are not atheists or agnostics but they are interested in your well-being.
@@olorunseunenitolumo jesus is lord
@@tigistyiheyis5737
No
That 2% difference was a bit misleading as he meant a 2% difference in length. You can change the 100% of a text and the difference in length would be 0%
Bart , love your work, bought the books etc however re the telephone comment - I have indeed seen you make the comment re the oral tradition being passed on, that its like the telephone game or Chinese whispers as I know it, where you tell someone something and by the end of passing it on over time and over people it has changed, so I think it was a fair question.
Great debate
"out of all those manuscripts no variance changed the cardinal beliefs of the church" So I agree that the abundance of many in that light strengthens not weakens the testimony of who Jesus is and what He taught as truth. Not a conspiracy to make up a lie.
The Johannine Comma attempts to establish the Trinity concept directly in the scriptures. It fails under critical examination in that regard.
None of the early church fathers tried to use the Comma as a defense of the Trinity. If they had that in their possession, they definitely would have used it.
He keeps on saying we have to assume that we have the original NT in front of us.... I don't want to assume I wan to to know
Marvin Davis walk back into history. Oh wait you can't.
Well, Wallace states we have broad strokes of what the NT originals state. Sure much for trusting in all of the New Testament! 😅
As someone who knows next to nothing about this sort of thing, I think the "Onion" or "Union" argument would sound a lot better if Dr. Wallace wasn't talking about texts that described the miraculous events you find in the bible.
Good Sir, you fail to realize that the original wording actually said "Onion", not "Union". This error originates from a secretary failing to understand how the great nation of USA is like an onion, it has layer upon layers. And beneath all these layers we all come together as fellow human beings to form the greatest nation on earth.
Johnnisjohnnis
also, just like an onion, it stinks!
Keep digging, Dr. Ehrman. Keep dusting us with gold. Thank you!
Charles Baker III Dusting us with gold?😂 Boy that is lots & lots of laughs.
Typical atheist clownish remark. Mere bias is a comfort pill though.
Ehrman, "Glass of water half empty" Wallace, "Glass of water half full".
You are right! I am very analytical, as much or more than Bart... the difference, Bart is missing the main ingredient - FAITH!
Wallace just wrong.
Dr Ehrman critically analyzes Scripture as an historian in the 21st century.
Dr Wallace, although seemingly also doing the same, does so with his admitted evanglical agenda. His position is compromised by his partiality.
Six years later Wallace apologizes for a key statement he made in the debate. His agenda blinded his skepticism.
First-Century Mark Fragment Update BY DANIEL B. WALLACE. (from danielbwallace.com)
23 MAY 2018
Apology
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.
No such apology required from Ehrman.
@@kruelton So you believe whatever without questioning?
frank brandom lol only thing Wallace did is vomiting blah blah without evidence. Dr Bart provided evidence with his criticism of erroneous bible
This is one of the best debates I've heard. Thank God for scholars. I wish instead of religions and cultures bickering and fighting they would combine efforts to explore space. There is something out there. And I hope we find it soon.
Why can't the moderator read?
No sound.
Comma Johanneum, Koine greek papyrus p75, None of the hundreds of variant versions of NT used match the source being koine greek. Erasmus and Luther both knew this fact.
A good debate. I side with Dan on this one. Much more thorough than Bart on his presentation but Bart did make some strong rebuttals. At the end of the day I believe Bart makes some serious assumptions that he cannot prove. His characterization of incompetent scribes based on the writings of the early church fathers up to the 2nd century poses some problems upon which it is possible to draw diverting conclusions. I just felt as if professor Wallace was a very competent presenter of the reliability of the text and Bart wasn't able to really surmount the confidence argument that was presented by Dr. Wallace. Bart's arguments are like placing a magnifying glass over an anthill and claiming that it's a monumental problem. Both have erudition and respectable knowledge and achievement.
Try using Dan's arguments in a Paw Shop, while trying to sell an old book and tell us how it went!
Your bias shows in the way you address the speakers and on your personal videos. You should do your best to attempt to remain unbiased.
edgar vera ...For me, Ehrman won this debate. I’ve only ever seen him stumped once, and I’ve watched many debates. He is reputed to be near to the top of the list of the world’s NT scholars, and I believe it.
Bart Ehrman is a Scholer of Bible , he had Doctorate Degree on it , yet you said he had weak argument just because he told the truth that you cant bear or maybe you think he should preach some emotiònal think what your church father do rather than Logic ???
Somebody wrote a reply to my previous comment about we might as well play 'pascals wager'.I got some of your reply through notification of it but it didn't show up on here, shame really I think you made a lot of sense but I couldn't read all of it, allthough I got the jist as I've heard of the arguement before.My reply is that when read alone without any inference the new Testament paticularly 'the letters' seem very compelling. Just saying from my experience
Bart says, "We have to _weed_ through them (the manuscripts)." That's kind of your job, Bart.
Bart is right. That's what historians (legitimate, reputable) do. No agenda, no cherry picking, as so-called Christian apologists do with history.
@@jujojamt Your assumption that historians have no agenda is basically incorrect. I cite the recent trend towards revisionist history and the attempts to erase from history anyone who is not politically correct. If someone owned slaves, forget the good ideas that we still celebrate. Disregard the historical context, then wipe them off the pages of history. Tear down their statues and monuments. Replace them with obscure figures. Historians are human and fall to the same ideological issues and agendas that everyone can. Even science is faked.
Ehrman is using the same old argument that he used against James White. You would think he would see the error in doing so, but for some reason I guess he feels he is winning these debates.
known aliases: Double Barrel Dan
Can't hear anything
Using earphones works.
Even if hypothetical you could get back to the original text word for word intended by the authors, all you would have is a STORY. I'm sure some believers think it would equate to jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven historically.
Seems Ehrman 's whole argument is based on his perceived mistrust of ancient scribes.
Really Fun. They admit adding John 5:7-8 and hundreds of other words ideas. Church fathers modified the hebrew bible also.
Really Fun
This is because he has placed his trust in the wisdom of man as opposed to the wisdom of God.
Did he ever trust the Holy Spirit for his interpretation of scripture? Where is faith? Why even speak of faith where textual criticism is concerned? I studied textual variants for over 27 years, yet I have returned to my faith and trust in God as I read his Holy word, as translated in the King James Version. No confusion for me, and I am not a KJVO, but I am and will always be a KJV first believer!
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith this was a historical interpretation debate not a stupid one about being filled with the spirit
R F That’s what you took from this?
I find it interesting that Bart starts with Mark, and then shifts gears to 2 Corinthians.
both are part of the NT
btw 2 corinthians...if you pay attention to the talk, is the earliest copy of the NT that we have.
Dan was more coherent not tiresome repeating and better positioned.Bart despite the fact that he is a priori prejudiced against any kind of miracles (and he made it clear that he abandoned faith for the problem of evil,despite the fact that intellectually the problem of evil has been totally destroyed from Plantinga since the 70's) he is not honest about the reliability of the NT manuscripts.
You honestly think Plantinga solved theodicy in the 70's???
Personally, i think if Bart can get round the problem of evil, he'd probably review his positions. His personal testimony reveals that the major turning point for him was the inability to grapple with the problem of evil. No wonder he does not say he is an atheist but a happy agnostic.
The sound is wrecked
Dude, yes.
We dont have any because of Diocletian. And what survived was because they split up the original works.
In hindsight Dan's source for this so called 1st century fragment must have been Donald Duck.
Dumb, guy. To err is human. Which apparently leaves you out...know what I´m saying?
Bart Ehrman’s rhetorical skills are stronger than Dr. Wallace’s. But Dan showed to be stronger in the analytics department.
Good discussion. Both scholars are gentlemen. I’d like to hear them again with a better debate format ... with 10 minute cross exam and rebuttal portions.
Soli Deo Gloria!
I did not know that Dr. Ehrman had a RUclips channel! He is one of my most powerful influences when it comes to my own studies.
Similar to him, I was raised under mainstream doctrine, and I took everything I taught as fact. But unlike him, I never went to college. I did, however, start leaning New Testament Greek in high school, since homeschooling with my mom provided that luxury. And I've been studying it ever since.
In that time, I made many similar discoveries. It was so hard for me to accept what I was finding because of how contradictory it was to my whole religious upbringing, but I would be a fool not to accept the facts. I was devastated, for example, when I came to discover that the Bible (at least in it's unadulterated form) never makes a solid claim for Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh.
It was while I was in my mid-twenties that I first read Misquoting Jesus, and Dr. Ehrman gave me much insight into this new world. It made me feel so much better knowing that there was such a man championing these ideas that had made me feel isolated from friends and even family.
Right now, I'm working on videos for my own channel that deal with such topics. Some of them are uploaded already, but they're unlisted for now. If anyone's interested, subscribe to my channel and you'll be updated when I release my videos.
23:38
If we don’t have the originals, how do we determine when the gospels were actually written? Lots of people like to say 50-90AD. But if the first copy of Mark was discovered 130AD, how can we find out accurately when the originals were written?
are just opinions, of men with faith and paid for that
It's not about an original text, but about the original Truth. The original Truth is God and His human appearance, and the various ways that Truth is pointed at by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God are the various texts. Also, St. Augustine shows in his book "Harmony of the Gospels" how the seeming contradictions among the four Gospels are different ways of addressing the same Truth.
Such a strong opening statement from Bart. Sums is all up
Except that he doesn't change the minds of actual Bible scholars.
John DelVento are you wanting to go to heaven¿.
@@billhildebrand5053
Not interested in pagan heaven
1:14:37 for those seeking the Wallace's announcement about first-century Mark fragment.
Bad audio
Just came across this. Both gentlemen, Wallace-the-believer and Ehrman-the-agnostic, provided valid opinions / ideas / feelings on the topic question - is the what-we-call the New Testament (NT) original writings lost ? We do not have any “originals”, either being destroyed intentionally or simply over time by decomposition. I will go out on a limb and state, if God wanted us to have the “originals”, I’m pretty sure He would have ensured such. But working with imperfect beings as is, the evidence is clear we do have the “gist” of NT stories, due to the vast number of copies, although not identical in form, of the times of the being Jesus the Christ - from announcing via John the Baptist, the birth, limited childhood life, his mission, arrest, trial, execution, death, burial, ascension, initial spreading of the gospel and discipleship, and future events. The most important task is keeping the message accurate for salvation. Unfortunately, this itself has seen many scholars and laypeople turn onto various side avenues for whatever reason drifting from the basic truths focusing on meaningless points causing dissension among the brotherhood and vexing (the Holy) Spirit within some. Are we all supposed to be identical in looks, actions, gifts, skills, etc ? Most importantly, we, believers, are called to be one in Spirit - a very hard task in itself. Even today, erosion continues on key doctrinal points - some holding fast to the simple and plain scriptures; some wanting to and the water-downed version. Your choice, but make sure you are doing so with a sound reason. The real judge is standing at the real door ... In Christ + 😇
I don't know if this debate is strictly on manuscripts, and this isn't to criticize Dr. Ehrman's debating in the least, but a key point was missed near the end: Christians aren't claiming that the NT is an accurate depiction of a form of Christianity at a certain time, but so accurate that if you don't believe them you will suffer eternal damnation. The problem of eternal destiny hinging on rumors aside, if we're going to accept that premise, is "good enough" historicity good enough? Ministers aren't calling the NT a record to study, they're calling it the divine truth and instruction filled with esoteric knowledge, not errors. Daniel Wallace is sort of slipping the audience a mickey. He's suggesting that if he can show the NT is good enough as a record, it's reliable as an absolute divine truth accurately conveying human destiny and God's terms for eternity. If anything the NT shows why the esoteric and legendary faith model of God is untenable: The believer isn't putting faith in any God, but in the integrity of the people talking and writing about him.
Maybe, but this is one of five debates. Your point may be outside the scope of this particular one.
It's faith in God's ability to preserve His words. Be careful you don't assume what you're trying to prove.
I just question if it takes a life time of work painstakingly fudging through manuscripts evaluating and then determining (if at all possible if these were what we could say were close to the originals) we still might not get to the bottom of it all and evaluating whether Christian religion can have any credibility on paper anyway (excuse the non intentional pun) it is a confusing mess, the best way is to remain agnostic about Christianity and just be humble enough to say 'we don't know', either that or give in and play pascals wager.
In order for something like Pascal's Wager to be even slightly compelling, you'd have to have sufficient reason to believe that the possibility of this one particular god's existence is worth considering in the first place (given all the other gods we dismiss out of hand as myth). Which, I think, is a big part of the reason the reliability of biblical texts is such a big deal to the religious. If they can demonstrate that the bible is somehow different than all the other ancient works whose fantastical tales they ignore, then maybe they've bet their money on the right horse after-all.
Scott Bowser
Hi, yes I know only to well what you are saying. However I believe I was never 'conditioned' by cultural influences to believe the Christian doctrine (I was a Budhist before I got converted to Christianity) and when I read the bible (the letters in particular) I just *didn't* want to believe them, as I was looking for flaws in its writings and any way out of not believing the stuff it claimed, I also didn't like what it was saying but somehow it convicted me and made me feel uncomfortable until I accepted it.
Please bare in mind I am not a believer as such anymore I am agnostic/atheist but some things within the Christian doctrine seem humbling to make you believe it, unlike anything I've ever read and I don't know if any other religious writings could do that.
Except for the historical accuracy of the text. Archaeology has verified a significant part of both Testaments historically and geographically. Luke's writings in Acts have been proven factual in identifying the details of the cities and even gets the titles of the officials in those cities correct. That lends significant credibility to Luke's investigation and recording of the facts in the Gospel he wrote. Which then carries over to Matthew and Mark who agree in many of the details with Luke.
Would someone be kind enough to explain the "I am" statement in Mark 14:62? It certainly seems to be a claim of divinity in line with the claims in John, but I know that it scholarly consensus that such things don't exist in Mark. This is an honest question, not a challenge.
*****
The Greek says "I am" and uses the same phrase that in John is considered to be a claim of divinity (since it harkens back to YHWH). I am just wondering why in John the "I am" passages are considered claims of divinity but not when the same greek phrase is used in Mark.
*****
Oh I agree. I'm asking about a specific verse given that Ehrman has said that Jesus doesn't make a divinity claim in Mark.
Mario world N.Y We are living in a time of great deception that Jesus himself predicted in Matthew 24. Great deception. These men are so arrogant and 100% wrong.
Mario world N.Y no they don't, Jesus is God clearly defined in all gospels. In Mark the high priest tore his ribe because he accused Jesus of Blasphemy...why was that? Jesus claimed to be the son of man of daniel 7, clearly a divine being.
Bart Erhman may know the texts, but he doesnt understand the texts...big difference.
Had to stop watching, the sound quality is terrible.
For the people who think Dr. Daniel B. Wallace won this debate. I will quote him here and quote what he said after the debate and leave the link. Dr. Wallace debate response, "I believe that we can be relatively certain that we can recover the wording of the original text. Relatively and Confidant." Now his response after the debate, "I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure.” But that’s a far cry from saying that we don’t have probability on our side." A whole different tone from the debate. He actually sides with Ehrman, WOW. danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
~1 Corinthians 2:14
To be a Christian,
They must ignore 90% of the bible that counsels evil.
They must ignore the hundreds of commandments of the bible that they don’t feel like following.
They must ignore the fact there is no corroborating scientific or historical evidence the bible is true.
They must ignore all the evidence the bible is just a myth.
They must ignore all ancient documents and myths from which the bible was plagiarized.
They must pretend not to notice how the church exploits the poor and vulnerable.
They must pretend not to notice the sexual exploitation of children fundamental to the church.
Mr. Ehrman, I'm a big fan -- have read five of your books and watched a lot of your lectures -- but I've got to tell you... you're really overly repetitive when you explain things. I'm at 22:15 and I've just listened to you repeat the same single point over and over for about five straight minutes. We get it: 2 Corinthians is several letters -- all of them dictated by Paul and recopied and modified over centuries.
What are some specific changes?
Good debate on the historical value of ancient documents with respect to their even more ancient original sources. But here's the thing: If an agent such as a God who created the universe and has a plan for humanity were to author of cause to be authored a book, it would be one small volume...The Book of God. It would be easily understood by people's of all languages, would be comprehensive in scope, would be consistent with all scientific and historical evidence up to and including the end of humanity. It would be incapable of being wrongly interpreted or interpretation differences by groups of individuals. It would be without error and unparral to anything any human could create because it would exceed human ability Of God wrote (or inspired its writing) we could expect nothing less. Instead, what we have is the exact opposite. The earliest Christians did not agree, the early church fathers did not agree, and the dozens of denominations that exist today don't agree. And they all read the same book. NT, OT, Quaran, and other God texts have nothing but the fingerprints of men all over their pages.
Blue star. I have thought the same thing for many many years. Why would not a omnipotent God transmit his message in a manner clearly understood and incapable of interpretations errors which have led to 40000 christian denominations.
Differences between groups doesn't mean that they are all wrong; that's not logical, one of them could be right.
And yes, the massage of God would probably be easy to understand by most of people (educated and not educated) and be superior to any other writing and i can't tell about NT&OT because I haven't read them, but the quran is easy to understand ( as long as you know the language ) and it's superior to any other thing ever written in arabic.
If Dr. Bart Ehrman's case of the origal text being nowhere near what we have today, then why aren't the four Gospels radically different?
Mr. Ehrman's behavior was out of line. This was a discussion, not a debate; and even debates are not laced with a sore disposition. I praise God for it, as it made me research him further and I discovered that he is an atheist (agnostic) - that explains it. I am not in agreement with Mr. Wallace's position, as I am not a fan of textual criticism nor of Westcott/Hort's work, thus I am not a fan of NA28/UBS5, so my opinion is not based on a bias viewpoint.
It is worth pausing to ask why the god of the universe would choose to express themselves through anonymous authors and confusing, often contradictory documents rather than simply stay here on planet earth for all to see and hear.
After creating the universe on a quantum foundation, slinging matter together over billions of years into stars and planets, exploding supernova to create heavier elements that make up our bodies, god decides to have the bible be his preferred method to communicate his presence and will to us?
You could say it's our fault for not understanding him, but then why does he suffer our limitations? Appear to all civilizations simultaneously throughout time to prove his greatness. Simply put, god can do a lot better than this...
Even if he did as you have described, you probably would still doubt him. But the point is, we often forget to give God his prerogative. Can't God decide how He wants to be revealed? We have a preconceived notion of how God must be and do things. What if He chooses to do it the other way round? I think that's what really makes Him God. If He does everything the way we think or expect, how would He be any different from us?
Mendicant - Or more directly, why didn't God the flesh just write his ideas down directly in numerous languages, with numerous copies (enough for 5,000 to read)? It's simply not possible for a thinking person to believe that an omnipresent, omniscient being intervenes and partakes in complex, current human affairs - yet didn't understand the value and importance of the written word, choosing instead the oral tradition.
The "Life Of Brain" comically nailed this point succinctly, in the scene where Jesus is delivering the Sermon on the Mount - only to have Brian shout out the ultimate truism from the back, "Speak Up!"
What the hell is this video?
43:46 Stealing from Christopher Hitchens.. ?
Did the apostles know their inspired writings were being copied and were being sent to various churches? Yes. Did they warn and complain about this fact? No. Did Jesus around 90 AD when Revelation was written ( John says nothing 90 AD when letters were being copied and circulated about his previous writings were corrupted) mention He was concerned copies were being made of the apostles’ writings that His Spirit had inspired? No. He knew they would be accurate enough so as not to violate doctrine.
Bou't time Bart. I can't get enough of this shit. If Isis reads this comment they might want to cut my head off. Meanwhile I'm just trying to raise a family in the Midwest.
Why would anything you said make ISIS want to cut your head off? They would want to do it, regardless.
Original NT most likely would have been written in Aramaic not koine greek. Seems like a moot issue to debate since no one has original NT and church fathers admitted changing adding to it such as 1John 5:7-8 along with Mark 16:9-29 and Mathew 29:19.
Erasmus and Martin Luther knew this fact.
motorhead Yes, would love to have the Aramaic.
What possible reason do you have for arguing that the original NT was written in Aramaic? Name one credible qualified scholar that believes this.
We have nothing earlier than the Greek. Aramaic versions show evidence of being translations from Greek.
The Greek versions give us quotes in Aramaic and translate for us. Why translate something for an Aramaic audience if it was written in Aramaic.
The Greek shows profound influence of likely Aramaic expressions that make more sense if read literally in Aramaic.... however.
That’s why some people argue for Aramaic.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Some NT writers quote directly from the Septuagint. They did use translations and did not always tell us. They were likely multilingual.
The gospels were not only written in greek, they authored by writers with little knowledge or understanding f the geography laws or culture of the "holy land" other than what they could pick up from the Hebrew bible.
Begin at 41:23 which starts Dan's lesson.
Bart ehrman debunks in the manuscripts of the new Testament
Bart Erhman says Jews do not make mistakes when copying texts. Ermm Tthe last time i checked the new Testament is in perfect harmony with the Old Testament, hence why not trust the preservation of the New Testament.
Sam Nik Soooo, when was the last time you checked? 🤔
Um, because we know it wasn’t preserved?
It has nothing to do with the intent or ability of the authoring religion, it has to do with what we can see with our eyes. Not a signaler,manuscript from the first millennium was copied exactly, except for very small craps of sentences.
People can chose to ignore this and believe we have some sort of inspired guide, but they have to ignore the evidence to believe this.
"Less than 1% of all textual variants fit this group" I guess he thought that sounded better than "Less than 40,000 textual variants fit this group".
David Hoffman four thousand is 1%
David Hoffman yes, like if the news reported an oil spill in the number of teaspoons instead of barrels of oil. Purposely trying to shade the narrative in your direction but patently dishonest.
Justin Cox it’s truly not even 4000 because only 1-5 of one percent are meaningful which adds up to 800 meaningful variants so he literally exaggerated it by 50 times. Even thought it could have been a spelling mistake
Not a biblical scholar myself but as an audio engineer I can say this debate is horribly done. Doubt the debate did not have any funds, unreal no one had the knowledge to correct the ground issue.
Daniel, "I believe we can be relatively certain that we can recover the wording of the original text". Two and a half years later and still nothing, sooo "relatively certain" means, never going to happen?
plwpahi that's because it can't be done. They have no way to know what is original
Oh wow. 2.5 years is nothing compared to the whole amount of time taken to even get to the point where we are now. Maybe you could read up some more, or take your claims elsewhere.
The fact that the existing Greek manuscripts contained 400,000 variants only proves that the Greek Texts are only translations from the original one which is the Aramaic. The Aramaic Texts are highly uniformed in writings, the variants are very few and in accordance to the masoretic level of uniformity. We must start to investigate the Aramaic paradigm of the New Testament and I have a very strong faith that Aramaic is the original language of the New Testament, after all Aramaic is the language of Jesus and his disciples.
so the conclusion is , that the actual bibles(NT) are the continuous correction of the available forms of early scriptures through time which end with 4 different bibles any way ! but still it is ok for your majority , so after 2 or 3 centuries superman could also become from a fiction a legend then a true identity , if the same criteria will be applied .
So the question is, are these texts intended to be an accurate depiction of real events? Or the relaying of a popular narrative with the purpose of transmitting a meaningful message to the reader?
Melbourne, Australia. Great debate. Prof Bart Ehrman made his points clearly and even a 5 yo kid would understand. Mr Daniel Wallace tried to defend the undefendable. It is mentioned that there are 400,000 errors/variances in the Bible. (30,000 errors/variances according to Jehovah Witness) . Yet, we are told to believe and accept ,that the Bible is the Words of Almighty God, despite of the admitted so many errors/variances. Are we fool? My questions are: (a) What type God is He if He can not defend His Book? (b) Who made the scribes made these so many errors/variances in the Bible? God or satan? Certainly, the answer is satan. Then, if satan made the scribes made that many errors/variances in the Bible, then for sure, satan made them also got into errors about the so called crucifiction of Jesus.
So list 10 errors and changes for me.
Faizal Hossen it’s obvious you really didn’t listen to the debate. Both Professors agreed that none of those variants affects or changes the core tenets of the Christian faith.
HOLES EVERYWHERE....ENTYRELY IN ALL OF THE TEXTS
I like Ehrman and believe his observations are valid. However, he lost this debate. His talk was repetitive. Probably a 10 minute pitch stretched to 30. In terms of "believability", Wallace came off as more credible with better analytics.
Greg T Wallace didn't come off credible to me in a lot of points. Bart clearly shut down anything Wallace had to say in thy e first round. His second he reiterated Wallace did nothing but prove that the majority of these manuscripts came late and that from the first 3 centuries you have 42 verses... Bart is not talking about Latin and all those other languages because we know the nt writings were likely Greek... So any other language is just a transliteration of a copy... Therefore Bart is sticking to This point. That since we don't have any complete manuscripts we don't know what they said. That's a win
+ Mr. G - Wallace did win, you are just biased.
He always says you have to do your own research. His message is simple. If you believe that these were actually God's words spoken through men. Then how come all is not in the Bible we have today.
@@Dizzinator2114 DId you watch the debate if Bart truly believed that we didn't have any complete manuscripts and we don't really know what they said then we can't argue anything of the bible and about the bible. Wallace already pointed out Ehrman's hypocrisy and he still believes and uses the bible to support his own arguments such as the existence of the historical Jesus Christ. By his own logic if he truly followed that he can't use the bible as a source to prove the existence of Jesus.
Bart finally lost a debate...well, Swinburne beat him too. And yes, Wallace was surprisingly solid.
Dr Ehrman critically analyzes Scripture as an historian in the 21st century.
Dr Wallace, although seemingly also doing the same, does so with his admitted evanglical agenda. His position is compromised by his partiality.
Six years later Wallace apologizes for a key statement he made in the debate. His agenda blinded his skepticism.
First-Century Mark Fragment Update BY DANIEL B. WALLACE. (from danielbwallace.com)
23 MAY 2018
Apology
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned.
No such apology required from Ehrman.
If Bart lost why is he still an Atheist...Wallace is just another self deluded Moron who never checks his sources...Dr Richard Carrier would destroy him!!
@Mike Bell don try , these people are arrogant , to them Christianity is nothing but a lie for fundamentalists , they been abused by bad parents mostly , even all the evidence in the world won' convince them
they cannot let of their ego that their precious world view is wrong ..... oh wait it is all a materialistic world , we r nothing but a chemical machines with no free will .
@@rationalsceptic7634 because like you he's in denial about reality.
@@jujojamt oh right and you and Errman have no agenda. there is none as biased as those that claim to be impartial.
Wallace was indeed referring to Ehrman as one of the "radical skeptics." He's not being honest on this point at all.
TheExRepublican Thats such a bullshit comment. Daniel Wallace is perfectly sane.
Gary Hudson. Long ago church burned alive people as heretics for even discussing this...let alone us Jews...
I highly doubt that. Ehrman is not that radical. He at least believes Jesus existed. Spong is a radical. He isn't sure that he exists. Robert Price is a radical skeptic. Wallace is plenty erudite to be aware of the spectrum of disbelief.
+motorhead - actualy Copernican heliocentrism was though at Catholic universities as a theory and there was no censorship. Try to teach Intelligent Design, or something contrary to man made global warming and you will find which group is more open minded.
"people as heretics for even discussing this" - You are just full of leftist propaganda.
"burned alive people" - yes about 2-6 thousand for 500 years. There is more abortions in an hour. So you have to have the sense of proportion.
"burned alive people as heretics for even discussing this...let alone us Jews..." - Jews created communism (2% of jews in Russia, 80-85% in Communist party), so they killed about 100 million. Jews worked with Spanish Inquisition to persecute newly converted Jews, called conversos. So the jews aren't really victims here.
Being atheist doesn't make you smart, read a book.
A conveniently fact-free accusation, name-calling not being rational argument, typical for deceitful Bart's deceitful allies.
Ehrman's arguments are so poor here that I wonder about his sincerity. Surely he must know better. I've researched textual variants (in a non-Biblical contexts), and everything Wallace says is correct. Most variants are beyond trivial; more texts equals more variants; but more texts equals more confidence that you can reconstruct a text that reflects the original.
No you can't, the original text is lost and will never be known.
fie fie!!! you are need to reconstruction of Your word of God..
very funny!!!!
@@LuciferAlmighty go read his argument properly. Let's give an example of a lecture. Over 500 students went to this one lecture and took notes from the lecturer. They never copied what the lecturer said word to word but took notes what the professor said for 3 hours. You decide to collect all 500 notes from the students that took notes during the lecture and reconstruct it. You can rest assure by collecting 500 notes you can accurately form what the professor actually said in that lecture even if these students never had the actual literate copy of what the Professor said.
Did Jesus Christ Himself read from the original Old Testament? Did any of the apostles read from the originals? No. Did Jesus or any of the apostles act like dr.Bart relative to this fact? No. Did Jesus promise His words would never pass away?Yes. Is it true that quotes from scripture from the early church fathers collectively form our New Testament? Yes. Do we have enough New Testament mss.to make reasonable judgments if certain scriptures were part of the original letters? Yes. Well over 5,800 manuscripts complete or fragments some of which are quite large. There are some 10,000 Latin manuscripts and some 9,300 manuscripts in various languages going back to the earliest centuries.
Dr. Ehrman you are wrong when you said that we can't know what the original was... what we have now is passed down traditionally through generations and that is infact evidence of preservation. Just because you don't have the same sources of manuscripts now doesn't mean Christians at the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century didn't had the accurate source of manuscripts back then... that's why we have what we call a traditional canonical books before the council decided what are canon books because what we have now are already widely accepted books written by the apostles or disciples of the apostles. Mr Ehrman you have a moral problem with God and that's the problem with you really.
Final comments of the evening were Erhman sticking to the accepted disciplines of scholarship and Wallace statement of fear if we don’t preserve orthodoxy’s end goal.
Inerrancy flew out the window without fanfare or even realization by its proponents.
Postscript: What ever happened to those mystery manuscripts that Wallace was sworn to secrecy about? I think I’ll research that, it’s been at least 6 years at this writing. Perhaps there’s been some progress?
Edit: Update Report and Epilogue:
THIS JUST IN!
Dan Wallace looks for new “Hobby”. Donald Duck implicated for date tampering after all...🤣
This guy is just making money out of his assertions can any other scholar put his work in scrutiny?
Daniel Wallace does not need, or try to present any evidence for his case. He only argues for the probability of the original texts not being lost forever. But this is all he needs to do. He does not need knowledge of the original texts, only the probability that the original words are somewhere among the variants we have, (and or any yet undiscovered ancient text,) and the possibility that we in the future may learn to recognize which of the variants are original.
He does not need knowledge, all he need is a gap.