# Preparing for Ehrman



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 7, 2012)

I finally have the time – and materials – to study Bart Ehrman’s writings and debates, and books about him, so as to prepare to rebut him, and that from the Textus Receptus / Byzantine MSS tradition and Authorized Version positions (or KJV _priority_, not “only”, as those familiar with my approach know).

This thread is to put down some of my thoughts, and seek advice from others – but please be aware if you think to do this, I am not really interested in defending the Bible (the NT – with regard to Ehrman) from the Critical or Eclectic Texts (CT or ET) as those are the very approaches to NT criticism & defense which put the wind in Ehrman’s sails, that is, it is those texts / approaches which elevate radical variants into the Biblical text and which Ehrman uses, among other things, to question the NT’s reliability.

I listened to his debate with James White (JW), and a few points stood out. He used White’s case against him, and even though White ably demonstrated that the authentic readings are “somewhere” in the multitude of manuscripts (what JW calls the “tenacity” of the original readings) that did not disarm Bart Ehrman’s (BE) contention that a) true readings were lost, as in the cases of what he calls the corrupt additions of Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, etc in some manuscript traditions (which JW agrees with), and b) that the vast multitude of variants, including omissions, additions, and changes poses such a challenge to those trying to figure it all out (and the disagreement of textual critics with regard to them) that it is clear that God did not preserve His word in an intact Bible, and if He did not go to the effort to preserve it, it is further clear that He did not inspire it in the first place, i.e., if He did not go to the trouble to preserve it – meaning that we do not have it in an intact preserved form – it is futile to suggest He inspired what we do not even have.

It was an interesting debate (I have yet to listen to or read others’ views on this discussion), and JW conducted himself well in his first half hour, but it became apparent that BE was far more thoroughly familiar with the material and textual data – and quite comfortable in discussing it extemporaneously – whereas JW spoke from prepared notes or concepts. Consequently BE’s presentation had more heart and power in it (being spontaneous) and JW’s more intellectual or “rational”.

BE made a big deal of our not having any copies or even copies of copies of copies (and on and on) for centuries after the originals were written, which originals themselves were written not in the first century but at earliest in the second, very far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles.

I also listened to and watched BE’s 2012 debate with Dan Wallace (DW). Now DW was a full-fledged text-critic of equal academic credentials and stature with BE, though BE used the same tactics on DW that he used on JW, those being the unavailability of a preserved NT text (DW said it was somewhere in the very many extant MSS – while BE replied that there are not so many if one disallows the mainly 9th century Byzantine tradition, which he knows DW disallows). BE pointed out that all the major textual critics in the U.S. and in Europe do not believe there is any hope at all of recovering the “original NT MSS”, but instead refer to the “ ‘earliest available form of the text, or _initial text_’ . . . which might be _significantly_ different from the text which the author produced”.

It was clear that DW holds the Alexandrian manuscripts (Aleph, B, P75, etc) to be the superior MSS – _far_ above the Byzantine – and so he agrees with BE (and JW) that the Byzantine tradition is not really worthy of serious consideration, as far as our seeking the NT’s true readings. BE holds that we cannot know what the original was because we do not have a preserved Bible (so how can we know? he asks) and doesn’t think “the true NT readings are in the multitude of MSS that exist”, and even if they were, there is no agreement among scholars as to what they are or what method to use to find them.

It was a telling moment when BE (in the debate with DW) said that, even given this impasse of inability to ever find the original NT, the scholars (and BE was referring to the skeptical major players in the field like unto himself) didn’t just pack up and go home, but instead continued to search for the “initial text” – the most recent text form available – and so continued their valuable labors. In other words, this was a steady job in a somewhat lucrative field (most of these folks are in academia) and why give up the meal ticket? Most of these major scholars are unbelievers like Ehrman (and his mentor Bruce Metzger), and they’re not quitting their jobs, but will continue in them, even if what they produce is destructive of the Christian faith and its foundational Document.

Lest anyone say, Why this focus on an apostate text critic? I would answer, Because he is – through his prodigious output of popular (as well academic) books – training a vast army of attackers of the Bible, from Muslims and Atheists to any and all who want to tear down the source of the Christian's faith. If you haven’t heard this attack used against you, your loved ones, or your church, don’t hold your breath – you will!

I aim for simplicity and brevity in my rebutting presentation. This is a true case of resisting “the tyranny of experts” (to use Machen’s memorable phrase) in their assaults on the people of God.

Any thoughts, suggestion of materials (I am looking to get the first Ehrman-Wallace debate of 2008, which I cannot yet find), or other help will be most appreciated.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 7, 2012)

Steve, have you read RETHINKING TEXTUAL CRITICISM yet? Those sympathetic with BE are bold to say that, not only will the autographs not be reconstructed, but that such is no longer the goal of textual criticism. To these it no longer matters what the words and sentences of the original were , they are not important. The more variants the better. The church's story is still being written!


----------



## Wayne (Jul 7, 2012)

One avenue for locating that 2008 debate would be worldcat.org

It's available on the web, but the academic library version is more robust for searches.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 7, 2012)

Hi Steve:

It may be helpful to center on the major differences between your view of TC and that of Bart Ehrman's. If I understand it correctly, then that center would be the inspiration of the Original Autographs. Does BE acknowledge that God exists, and that God inspired the Original Autographs of the New Testament? If this is the case, then what you need to show is that God preserved the Autographs in the Byzantine MSS, and that using ordinary means of textual criticism one can come to a veritable photocopy of the Original. The difficult question for BE, JW, and DW is, "Why would God inspire the original autographs, and not preserve the inspired originals in the manuscripts available today?" Both JW and DW, being evangelical Christians, are inconsistent with the Westcott-Hort theory when they acknowledge the preservation of the Originals. The W-H theory was designed to specifically destroy the Textus Receptus, but in so doing it destroyed any hope at all in recovering the Original text.

The problem is not with the copies we have today - it is with the philosophy used by Bart Erhman, James White, and Daniel Wallace.

At least that is how I see it. I hope this simple observation may be of some help.

Blessings in King Jesus, brother!

-Rob


----------



## Loopie (Jul 7, 2012)

I was at the debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman in October 2011. I am not an expert on textual studies of the biblical manuscripts, but I will say that it was not hard to see the skeptical position that Bart Ehrman brought to the debate.

During one of the audience questions, a student asked Dr. Ehrman what it would take for him to accept a particular gospel account as authentic (what would constitute 'good evidence'). Bart replied that if there were 10 copies of the original gospel (such as Mark) dated within 10 days of the originals, he would consider that to be 'good evidence'. 

As we can see, Dr. Ehrman demands a level of evidence that no document could have until the modern period (perhaps even the invention of the photocopier). There is a lot of hidden assumptions and presuppositions in Dr. Ehrman's thinking, and the fact that he made such a high demand of evidence is a testimony to his extreme skepticism. If we were to hold ALL documents to his standards of what constitutes 'good evidence', then we honestly need to seriously doubt (and perhaps reject) every document produced prior to the invention of the photocopier. Such is the position that Dr. Ehrman holds.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 7, 2012)

For what it's worth, a minister colleague recommended this book: Amazon.com: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (9781433501432): Andreas J. Kostenberger, Michael J. Kruger, I. Howard Marshall: Books


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 7, 2012)

Remember that Bart Ehrman started out as a Moody Bible Institute student and then a Princeton student under Metzger. Somewhere along the line he allowed the uncertainties of the world to swallow his faith whole. He knows the lingo, the mindset, and the arguments of the conservatives. At this stage of his career, he is not impressed by apologetics any more than Richard Dawkins. Like Dawkins, he delights in slicing and dicing Christian warriors.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2012)

Loopie said:


> I was at the debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman in October 2011. I am not an expert on textual studies of the biblical manuscripts, but I will say that it was not hard to see the skeptical position that Bart Ehrman brought to the debate.
> 
> During one of the audience questions, a student asked Dr. Ehrman what it would take for him to accept a particular gospel account as authentic (what would constitute 'good evidence'). Bart replied that if there were 10 copies of the original gospel (such as Mark) dated within 10 days of the originals, he would consider that to be 'good evidence'.



I was going to point this out. Thank you. I believe he also added that they would need to have less than .1% variation or something to that effect. Ehrman's problem is not skepticism with the Scriptures but the idea that we know what _anybody_ wrote in antiquity.

I guess the real question, Steve, is: "Who is the audience?" If the purpose of the rebuttal is to "preach to the choir" to those who already believe in the Providential preservation of the Scriptures then that's going to be a pretty short article because, in the end, after all the dust settles, that's really what it boils down to. Im not saying that's a bad thing and is the basis for my belief in the integrity of the copy of the Scriptures I hold. 

But what it seems you're writing is not just a rebuttal claiming Providential preservation but Providential preservation of _some_ manuscripts that made it to Europe, divine guidance on translations from the Vulgate for missing Greek portions, divine guidance on selection of readings by the translators of the KJV, and then divine guidance by Scrivener who put it all into a text with no variants. If the reader of your critique believes all of the above as _the_ method that God used to preserve His original text then are they really persuaded by BE to begin with?

I think, if you decide to write the critique, you ought to do a much better job of listening to James White. As an example, your observation here widely misses the mark:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> He used White’s case against him, and even though White ably demonstrated that the authentic readings are “somewhere” in the multitude of manuscripts (what JW calls the “tenacity” of the original readings)



James' point is not that the text is "somewhere in there" but it is a challenge to the radical skepticism of BE. It is also a challenge to the "phone game" story that BE regularly tells ignorant listeners as if one copy was made and torn up and then another copy, etc. His point is that multiple copies would have been made of the autographs so it would not be a simply "phone game" transmission but much more complex as the text also was used daily by the community of the faith. Regardless of James' position as someone who rejects your TR position you should be happy that he's challenging this deceptive ploy by BE to prey on the ignorance of his listeners. Instead, you treat James as a foe on points where you ought to be listening more carefully.

My suggestion is that you spend more time listening not only to the debates but to James White's analysis of them and you set aside your party spirit in order to listen to his points more carefully. James White is a sinner like us all but he is in the trenches on this stuff putting out good critiques of BE's radical skepticism and you need to represent him properly before you attempt to extend the criticism of BE's methods. Again, there are many critiques at the basic honesty level of BE's approach that have already been thoroughly demonstrated. There are also sufficient critiques of his radical skepticism. Next, there are critiques of his anti-supernaturalsim that leads to all of the above and a basic rejection of the idea of preservation. Fourth, there are critiques of his lack of theological training where he makes amateurish observations about textual variations.

All of these exist. If the purpose of your paper is to add the additional idea that if one accepted the preservation of the text in the TR then I don't know who that additional argument appeals to except for the already convinced.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 8, 2012)

Poimen said:


> For what it's worth, a minister colleague recommended this book: Amazon.com: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (9781433501432): Andreas J. Kostenberger, Michael J. Kruger, I. Howard Marshall: Books



I'm reading it right now, It does have a lot of info to rebutt BE. Erhman was inspired by a guy named Walter Bauer, he seems to be the catayst behind a lot of textual criticism we see for the past 100 years. I would suggest reading it get to know Erhman better.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 8, 2012)

Steve,

Joel McDurmon of AV also did a critique of the White-Ehrman debate. White had a response to McDurmon and I think the DL show that McDurmon was on is still available.

Kent Brandenburg has also commented on that debate and the Wallace debate.

If you don't have Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scriputre, you should get it for the "Index of Modern Authors" alone. You might also contact Harvard's Classics department (graduate studies) to get more information on their recommended reading for philology. And of course you should contact Oxford's Philology department as well. (Linguistics, Philology, & Phonetics) Most of the work being done is in German though. But there should be enough derivative works in English recommended by both Harvard & Oxford to gain a better understanding of the foundations for Ehrman's view. SolaSaint's recommendation is supposed to be one of the best counters to Walter Bauer's hypothesis. I found an English translation of Bauer's book at: Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 8, 2012)

Thanks, Josh!

Bob (rbcbob), thanks – and I noted your earlier mention of this book in your http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/shift-new-testament-textual-criticism-74281/ thread. This does seem to be the way the text-critical industry is going nowadays, serving a two-fold purpose: providing a living for unbelieving Greek-language scholars, and attacking the foundations of the church. I’ll see if I can’t get a copy of that book though my local library’s Inter-library Loan service (budget too small to be buying books right now). If I might ask, what was the position you earlier arrived at re “the CT-Byz debates”? (You don’t have to answer that, given the volatility of these issues here!)

Wayne, thanks for the lead on that!

Rob, the difference between BE’s view of textual criticism and mine is as great as the heaven is high above the earth. Being an avowed agnostic he says he does not know if there is a God. Nor does he believe that God – if there is one – inspired the autographs.

And you’re right, “the problem” is the presuppositions Ehrman holds: no God, no inspired Scripture, and orthodox Christianity is a hoax, a mere figment of the imagination. The trouble is he is very knowledgeable with regard to early church history, the various Christian and pseudo-Christian writings, the Greek NT manuscripts, etc etc. And this vast array of knowledge he puts a spin on to deny the legitimacy of the Bible, and church, and God. Thanks for your input!

Eric (Loopie), thanks! The 2011 debate between is the next one I’m going to watch (I think it’s on Youtube).

Daniel, thanks for the tip on that book – I’ve seen it around – it sounds interesting, and I’ll try to get hold of it.

Hey Dennis! “. . . delights in slicing and dicing Christian warriors” – that sounds like a modern intellectual version of old Goliath! And I think it’s clear BE never had a genuine faith.

Hi Rich – so we meet here again! Ehrman’s problem *is* skepticism with regard to the Scriptures, and the idea of doubt concerning other writings of antiquity is incidental – collateral damage. He doesn’t have the ancient Greek writings in his crosshairs, only the writings of the church of the true God. He has an ax to grind, and he does it with all his strength, and it brings him fame and wealth to boot.

The “audience” for what I am thinking to write contra Ehrman is the church of Jesus Christ. It is _the choir_ that is under his assault – and _he_ is the one preaching to it – and not just the choir of today, the elect yet uncalled and unconverted are also being exposed to his stuff. Are we to just let such profligate evil – such flagrant sowing of incentive to dismiss the Lord of Glory and His word as bogus – go unchallenged? Not all the saints are well-grounded in understanding these things, or able to stand under such attacks.

Rich, I’m very explicit that I’m not taking a generic approach to defending the Scripture. Drs. White and Wallace are explicit in the textual tradition they defend: the critical and/or eclectic texts, _excluding_ the Byzantine and the TR. Have I not that prerogative myself? These two gentlemen – and I have high respect for them both – do just what I am doing, although from a camp that differs from mine. And if I think their approach falls short of satisfactorily answering Ehrman – due to their textual choices – have I not the legitimate option – the right – to try to do it better? Now I will be the first to admit I am not even in the league of Drs. Ehrman, White, or Wallace, but it is written, “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty . . . That no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor 1:27, 29).

All of these aforementioned men seem to me to be playing a game of evidences; those with the better evidences, and the better explanations of them, wins. I don’t agree with that approach. Ehrman doesn’t believe in much of anything as far as God and His works are concerned; White and Wallace believe in evidences; Wallace does not believe in God’s providential preservation of the Scripture, while White does, though White’s view of how God did this is in accord with his evidential approach to the critical/eclectic text. Although I appreciate – and use – evidences, my primary approach is presuppositional. It is theological, an approach Wallace disdains. 

Please Rich, I do not count Dr. White as a foe at all! He is a stand-up brother in Christ who is a great example to us all in defending the Faith. Because I do not agree with his approach on two subjects – baptism and the Scriptures – does not mean I have a mean view of him! And please do not think I do not consider White’s points carefully, for I do. I just find his approach wanting.

Nor need I remind you of this, the “TR position” comes with a good pedigree! It was the universal position of the Reformation church until the last two decades of the 19th century. You and I have had this discussion in part in the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/skepticism-doubt-toward-bible-52046/ thread a few years ago, and I gather we have each remained of the same mind. But I take your suggestion to heed JW’s analyses of the debates and BE’s books, and also to carefully consider the various critiques of Ehrman, a good number of which you have helpfully enumerated. But you have said,

If the purpose of your paper is to add the additional idea that if one accepted the preservation of the text in the TR then I don't know who that additional argument appeals to except for the already convinced.​ 
Okay – I gather it won’t appeal to you! Maybe in the world you inhabit and the circles you walk in the TR and AV issues are passé – non-issues, really. But I have a different view of the world, and of what ails the church. The church is grievously wounded because of the textual confusion that has been engendered in it, and I have a mind to address it, insofar as the Lord enables me to do so.

And this view of mine branches out into other areas, such as the history of the NT text. My favorite writer on this is Wilbur N. Pickering, who wrote, The Identity of the New Testament Text III, and his chapter five, “The History of the Text” is a great hypothesis on the care and transmission of the NT documents in the very early days of the church (1st through 3rd centuries). Ultimately, neutralizing the poison of Ehrman will depend not merely on refuting his views, but providing an understanding which is in accord with what Scripture promises and history demonstrates. Or as Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont have said in the Introduction to their, _The New Testament  In The  Original Greek  According To The  Byzantine / Majority Textform_,

“A sound, rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis.”​ 
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand. So presenting a clear picture that tells quite a different story than Ehrman (or even JW or DW) tells, this is what is needed. Showing how God did it – preserve His inspired word through the centuries – up to a finished intact Bible, and then faithfully translated as it was done in the Authorized Version of 1611. It was asked of me recently which edition of the AV is the final one (after minor corrections), and I would say the Cambridge Edition of 1900, published into the 1st half of the century, and also by Collins in Scotland. (But more on that another time, another thread.) A simple telling of how God fulfilled His promise, which promise is also codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8. This is what is required to refute Dr. Ehrman.

I’m glad you called me out on this, Rich, as it gives me a chance to formulate and express my thoughts. Although many have confronted Ehrman on his various shortcomings as regards what he’s doing, I am finally devoting my time to study him, as well as those critiquing him, so I will be getting up-to-speed on all this, Lord willing He keeps me in the world a while longer and allows me to have my wits about me (though some might deny this latter is so).

I have asked the Lord to give me both a simplicity and a profundity in the various endeavors I am undertaking (such as He Himself manifested). This is the approach I seek to take contra “Theonomy” – more like unto Alexander’s cutting of the Gordian knot than the unraveling of it, though my blade is the word of God. I cannot match the expertise in the field of textual criticism such as BE and DW have, nor even that of JW, but I do know my God, and I know His word, and I do know what He has promised with regard to this word.

Like when Goliath of ancient times was troubling Israel and giving its enemies murderous boldness, it was a mere stripling who had the faith to go out after him and bring him down. He was no match for this monster of a warrior, humanly speaking; it was by faith in his God and by the courage He instilled in his heart he prevailed. My take on our Bible is born of faith, not evidences – though, as I said, I am not averse to evidences, after all we did see Goliath’s head severed from his body – even so I proceed. May God uphold me.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 8, 2012)

Steve, I am with Robinson on the issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Okay – I gather it won’t appeal to you! Maybe in the world you inhabit and the circles you walk in the TR and AV issues are passé – non-issues, really. But I have a different view of the world, and of what ails the church. The church is grievously wounded because of the textual confusion that has been engendered in it, and I have a mind to address it, insofar as the Lord enables me to do so.


The world I inhabit is the same as yours. I believe in the Providential preservation of the Scriptures but I simply don't accept, as an article of the faith, that the method of that preservation has to be through the schema that the TR advocates lay forth nor does WCF 1:8 require that I claim, with certainty, that the TR (and its known history) is _the_ method by which He has accomplished His ends. My faith is not built on evidences (and that includes those that the TR position posits to try to convince others that they must either accept that God preserved His Word through their method and no others).

I'm really quite weary of this debate and typically avoid it because the claims for skepticism are always one way. You accept as an article of faith that if someone rejects your detailed account of _how_ God has Providentially preserved the text then you claim a lack of faith in preservation. It is a tautology that I need not accept. Furthermore, WCF 20 leaves my conscience unbound to anything but Scripture. Every historical argument you make for the method by which the text has been preserved is not found in the Scriptures themselves but are an appeal to an external standard that I need not be bound unto in order to affirm that God has preserved His Word. I rest on Deut 29:29 and the inscrutable ways of God. I need not attempt (nor am I permitted) to state with certainty how God's Providential ways have worked but trust that He accomplishes what He promises. Thus, let's stop the tired comparison that those who are non-TR represent a sub-class of Christians who do not believe in the Providence of God simply because they refuse to accept the certainty of the report from TR-advocates that they know the mind and ways of God in historical detail.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 9, 2012)

Rich, apart from _your_ debating _me_ about my textual choices, this thread is not about any TR / AV and CT debate. And that is really off-topic. This thread is about seeking a way to approach Bart Ehrman effectively. I think James White did a good job standing up to him, and he refuted some of Ehrman’s points, but I do not think he won the debate; rather it was more of a draw.

I can see you’re weary of the TR debate. Besides my *not* engaging in that here (save to respond to your above post), am I not allowed – in your view – to bring the text-form of the Reformation to bear against Ehrman’s attack on the New Testament? I have not seen it done by anyone else. I wish someone _had_ done it, and I would not feel pressed to. It is evident that the use by other defenders of the NT – and the Faith – of the Alexandrian-based manuscripts plays into Ehrman’s strategy of attack. Drs. White and Wallace freely fly the banner of the Critical / Eclectic Texts over their camp as they seek to contend with this foe of Christ. Have I not the right to fly what banner I will as I go into the fray?

I do seek to abide by the standards of PuritanBoard, both doctrinal and conduct-wise. I also have learned while here at PB to respect the differences folks have in matters which are often fraught with volatility, such as baptism and textual issues. It is simply not true that I “claim a lack of faith in preservation” if someone rejects the view of the Byzantine (or Antiochian) text with its historical trajectory through the centuries into the Reformation era and its development into the TR and the translations from that. I see those who differ with me as having a *different* “faith in preservation”, not a lack of faith in it. Do I think they are wrong? Yes. Do they think the same of me? Yes. And I extend this attitude of graciousness especially to those who hold to the WCF post-BB Warfield and his views on the preservation of the text, which differed from those who came before him, and which influenced the Reformed churches after him to this day. Now does this mean we must be muzzled in our vigorously prosecuting our cases and laying out our views of the repercussions of what we hold to be error? No, one can be vigorous, pointed, and gracious at the same time.

Rich, *both* sides of the issue have their “detailed account of how God providentially preserved the text”. As I’m sure you know, “historical argument . . . for the method by which the text has been preserved” has been used for the Alexandrian / CT school as well as the Byzantine / TR. We all will observe our own scruples in what we accept in this matter.

And there have been those here at PB who have made out the holders of the TR / AV school to be “a sub-class of Christians”, as well as vice versa. If we treat one another with respect and affection the while discussing these things I think we can avoid that noxious stereotyping. If we have not these caring attitudes in our heart there is something wrong from the get-go.

I am not at war with my brethren. I *am* at war with a man who wickedly tears down the faith of my brothers and sisters, a man who _with relish_ seeks to trash their trust in God’s words. There is a diabolic spirit in the forcefulness and pleasure he takes seeking to make apparent contradictions real contradictions, claiming our Bible has “hundreds” of such. I will use those weapons I have proven – the word of my God, and the wisdom He gives.

This is what this thread is about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 10, 2012)

Steve,

I asked a question about who the book was trying to convince and pointed out that you were not listening to James White and you responded with what I quoted above along with other broadsides. You boiled down any other approach to the text as so much capitulation to modernism and evidences. Finally, you repeated a lie about James White that I corrected in my first reply. Present your case that doesn't simply consist of trashing or misrepresenting others while claiming, in humility, that you're not at war with them and I'm fine. 

I recognize there are certain things that cause hackles to rise but you can also add offense above and beyond the natural offense that a difference of conviction will entail. It may be unavoidable as I realize the TR position will, by necessity, have to claim that any other historical account cannot be the way in which God worked. Your positions claims to know, in precise historical detail, God's way in which He preserved the text and you will view other views as denying God's actions in history. Nevertheless, you can at least present those who differ with you accurately. James White is not an evidentialist and I don't believe I've ever heard you call him up and demonstrate to him that he is. On the one hand you acknowledge that others can believe in Providential preservation apart from your account of it but on the other you boil it all down as one who does not rest on faith but evidences.

If, in the end, you continue to present a "kindly" violation of the 9th Commandment then I don't consider that to be "gracious". We're still sinning against our brothers even when we're being nice and gentlemenly in the process of misrepresenting them. There is no grace is smooth words that deceive.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 10, 2012)

Hi:

Steven: I hope that I did not mean to imply that your views and BE's were similar! If I did, then that was not my intention, and I ask you to forgive me brother.

Rich: I would be interested, simply on an intellectual level, to read what you believe concerning God's Providential Preservation of the Manuscripts. I ask this not to debate with you, but simply to understand where you are coming from on this matter?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jul 10, 2012)

Steve:

I truly do not comprehend the zeal for the so-called "TR" of the KJVO camp, and I can grasp the distinction of KJV "preferred." 

That said, I greatly admire your passion, preparation and willingness to defend the veracity of the scriptures (as broadly or narrowly as one wishes to define one's text tradition) against the deciet and apostacy of Ehrman. May the Lord bless and use your endeavor to His Glory. 

Mark


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 10, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Steven: I hope that I did not mean to imply that your views and BE's were similar! If I did, then that was not my intention, and I ask you to forgive me brother.
> 
> ...



A couple of things for me:

1. I am sympathetic to some criticisms of modern textual approaches but also don't buy into the conspiracies about older manuscripts. 

2. I don't really buy the argument that people abandon the faith over textual variants. These are presenting problems but Ehrman lacks the Spirit of God as evidenced by his folly in areas that have nothing to do with variants. 

3. I find the TR position wanting because it won't permit criticism of its own history in the manner it criticizes other views. I've run into this directly where a question is turned and the response amounts to "...we can't ask such questions."

4. In the end my trust is very simple and equivalent to my 6 day view of Creation. I believe it because it is the Word. I don't have to have all the pieces worked out in exacting scientific detail nor do I have to build a case that claims everything was finished by 1900. All of those points are extra Biblical and speculative. I don't live by speculative theories and the worst case scenarios about the corruption of the text leave me non-plussed. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 10, 2012)

Rich, I think you level the charge of breaking the 9th commandment – bearing false witness – carelessly, and inappropriately. If, in a debate or even a discussion, someone errs – makes an honest mistake – we do not say, You have sinned, you have violated the commandment of God against false witness. 

Likewise, if I have honestly erred in how I characterize James White’s apologetic approach to refuting Ehrman, I do not think such an accusation as you have made is warranted (not that I am admitting to have erred). I have acknowledged that James bases his method on the presupposition that God has promised to preserve His word, although my take on the particulars of his _method_ (not his presuppositions) is that he proceeds on the accumulated rationales of his predecessors in the production of the critical / eclectic text – the Alexandrian text-type. More on that in a moment.

You also say, “you repeated a lie about James White that I corrected in my first reply”. Would you specify what lie you are alleging I have made?

The rationales mentioned above pertain to assumptions with regard to Westcott and Hort’s (W&H) “neutral text” (i.e., pure, unadulterated by scribal or other corruptions) – which claim of “neutrality” is no longer accepted by text critics generally – as well the assumptions of those mostly German rationalist critics that carried the torch for the Critical Text long before it got into the hands of W&H. These assumptions? That the New Testament was not a supernaturally created book, and should be treated as any other book – by their naturalistic methodologies.

Part and parcel of these methodologies – especially when it came to W&H – was the disallowing of the very large number of the Byzantine / Antiochian manuscripts with a theory of an official edition of that text-form which produced this large number of mss (a claim also no longer accepted or provable, as it is without _any_ historical basis – a mere conjecture). My point is, these tenets of textual criticism which adhere to the CT / ET are _merely_ evidential, and not in accord with the Biblical presupposition of providential preservation – which presupposition was disdained by its rationalist producers.

Nor did I refer to James White as “an evidentialist”, but that his view of how God providentially preserved the Scripture was “in accord with his evidential approach to the critical/eclectic text” (post #12), which is a narrow qualification. Though he certainly cites as authorities those who disdain Biblical presuppositions regarding preservation (Wallace, Metzger, Aland) to make his case with Ehrman.

In their book on apologetic methods, _Faith Has Its Reasons_ (p. 205), by Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman (Navpress 2001), this is written concerning an aspect of the Evidential approach:


The *bibliographical test* seeks to determine whether the existing or extant copies of a document are reliable reproductions of the wording of the original document. [J.W.] Montgomery emphasizes that we have many more manuscript copies for the New Testament writings than for other ancient writings, and that the time gap between the earliest complete copies and the originals is smaller for the New Testament than for other ancient writings. “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament”.

The bibliographical test does not establish the factual accuracy of the historical narratives in the documents, only that the documents as we know them are substantially the same as they were when originally written. Accurate copies of fables would still be fables. But the claim is so often made that the New Testament writings are unreliable because of mistakes in the copying process that apologists find it necessary and helpful to point out the evidence for the textual reliability of the Bible. [internal page references omitted]​ 
Now this classic evidential approach is precisely what James White presented to Dr. Ehrman in seeking to refute his skepticism. For me to say he used an evidential approach is very far from my saying he is “an evidentialist”!

To sum this up, Rich, I do not think your accusatory approach to one who is an ordained pastor and elder (albeit presently retired from this foreign mission work) is right. Though I do appreciate that you seek to make sure your friend, James White, is not slandered here aboard your ship. But too quick a draw sometimes gets an innocent person shot.

------------

Chris (JohnGill), thanks for the info!

Rob, I did not take your saying amiss. Rest Easy!

Mark, I’ll respond to you shortly, DV.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 10, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> But too quick a draw sometimes gets an innocent person shot.


Let us both learn from this then. I will accept that I have been a little hard on you and repent. I should have been more gentle in my concerns about how you represented contrary positions.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 11, 2012)

Hi:

Thank you, Steve, for that. I definitely believe that your views and BE's are antithetical. I wish you God's gracious blessing for you in this endeavour! Amen!!

Thank you, also, Rich, for your response. Again, I do not wish to debate you, and am asking these questions simply to get a better understanding of your position. My own belief is that the area of textual criticism is a vital necessity for the Church. And, as you well know, the foundation of the Church is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures, with Jesus Christ as the Chief Cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20. If the Scriptures have not been preserved "through all ages" (as the WCF says), then neither has the Church. The Preservation views of Dr. Wallace and Dr. White have not, at least as far as I know, been clearly articulated, and I find something problematic in that. Allow me to explain?

Given their acceptance of the Alexandrian texts as the pure copies of the Original Autographs, then there is a serious historical problem with their views. That is, that there is about a 1,200 year gap (from about 600 to 1800 AD) where the true copies of the Original Autographs were not used. In fact, given their understanding of the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, one has to say that the Church was using faulty, inferior, and "uninspired" Greek texts. I find it hard to believe that men such as Wycliffe, Luther, Hus, Coverdale, Tyndale, Calvin, Owen, the Westminster Divines, the Covenanters, and the Dutch Reformers were all using Greek texts that were not Providentially Preserved. The Reformers were well aware of the major objections raised by today's critical text scholars (the Comma, the Pericope Adulterae, and the ending of Mark) see, for example, Francis Turretin's treatment of this in his _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, vol. 1, pg. 115 (section X). These objections did not cause the Reformers (except Luther - who also questioned the authenticity of James and Revelation) to throw up their hands and say, "Ok, the Byzantine texts are wrong and the Alexandrian are right." I think that Turretin's treatment of this matter in his section on the Holy Scriptures: Questions 10-11, vol. 1, pgs. 106-116 answers the objections of Modern Textual criticism rather nicely.

Well, anyway, now that you are more aware of where I am coming from, then I would like to understand how you view Providential Preservation given the problems with the Alexandrian texts mentioned above.

Thanks again for your kind response, and may God continue to bless you in your studies.

Through King Jesus,

Rob

PS: By the way - I attended New Geneva in Colorado Springs for about a year. Give Dr. Aquilia and Dr. Powell my warmest regards when you get the chance!

-RPW


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2012)

Rob,

As I stated previously, apply the same historical skepticism to all the pieces of the TR position that you do for the Alexandrian manuscripts then I'll actually believe that historical analysis is your real concern. A position that uses one method to criticize and refuses that its own may be criticized by the same criteria is soon seen as unreputable. I challenge you to show me any other theological discipline that uses such an inconsistent apologetic. 

I agree and have stated that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is important. What I stated was that the method need not be understood in precise detail nor do the inscrutable ways of God and His Providence allow for any such assertions. It s my belief that a TR position that inconsistently criticizes other positions for the weaknesses it itself possesses undermines greatly the apologetic for preservation. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 11, 2012)

What's ironic about the debate you cited is that Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the JWs, was a KJV advocate.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 11, 2012)

DMcFadden said:


> At this stage of his career, he is not impressed by apologetics any more than Richard Dawkins. Like Dawkins, he delights in slicing and dicing Christian warriors.


That's because he's not interested in the truth if it doesn't fit his worldview. Nobody is ever argued into the kingdom of God by our efforts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 11, 2012)

Rich, I much appreciate your godly and gracious response. May I be as quick to repent when I need to! And, for my part, I will learn from this to be extremely careful – and as clear as I can – in the things I say.


Rob, please, I don’t want to have this thread go off topic into a TR / Byz / AV vs. anything else debate.


Jeremy (J. Dean), this misuse of a thing (re Russell using the KJV) does not invalidate its proper use. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses now use the actual Westcott-Hort critical Greek text in their interlinear NT, as the KJV / TR was used so effectively against them. _All_ the other non-New World Translations can be well used against them.

And true, souls can’t be argued into the kingdom, except God grant them grace to believe and repent. But their arguments against God and His word can be shown invalid by a proper defense / offense.


More soon.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Jul 11, 2012)

DMcFadden said:


> Remember that Bart Ehrman started out as a Moody Bible Institute student and then a Princeton student under Metzger. Somewhere along the line he allowed the uncertainties of the world to swallow his faith whole. He knows the lingo, the mindset, and the arguments of the conservatives. At this stage of his career, he is not impressed by apologetics any more than Richard Dawkins. Like Dawkins, he delights in slicing and dicing Christian warriors.



If I remember correctly, the main catalyst of Ehrman's apostacy was his inability to deal with evil and suffering. He couldn't accept the God of the Bible and the reality of evil and suffering. Theodicy came first, Text Criticism issues came later...


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 11, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jeremy (J. Dean), this misuse of a thing (re Russell using the KJV) does not invalidate its proper use.


 You get no disagreement from me on that point; I'm not saying it does. I'm just stating that use of the KJV (or any one translation for that matter) does not guarantee avoidance of all potential misunderstandings and erroneous doctrines of Scripture. I can name a great many orthodox Christians who do not use the KJV; while conversely I can also name a great many erroneous leaders that did (and do) use the KJV (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Charles T. Russell (yes, JWs use the NWT _now_, but Russell started on the King James Version), and a large number of Oneness Pentecostals and Word of Faith teachers to name a few). 




> And the Jehovah’s Witnesses now use the actual Westcott-Hort critical Greek text in their interlinear NT, as the KJV / TR was used so effectively against them. _All_ the other non-New World Translations can be well used against them.


 Yes, but they butcher it with their own insertions and (liberal) alterations to the English renderings in a way that was never intended, even by Wescott and Hort.



> And true, souls can’t be argued into the kingdom, except God grant them grace to believe and repent. But their arguments against God and His word can be shown invalid by a proper defense / offense.


 No disagreement there, either. In fact, the more a person calls you names, the better your argument probably is


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 11, 2012)

I want to say that there have been 3 Wallace/Ehrman debates. One of them (2008?) was at NOBTS. 

For what it's worth they both participate in the Textual Criticism Yahoo Group, but I don't know how much serious (and especially detailed) discussion goes on there. I clicked on it yesterday and saw that they had both recently posted there along with some fairly prominent KJV Only/Preferred/TR Only etc. bloggers. I was surprised to see the latter but my guess is that they are largely if not entirely ignored by the professionals.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 11, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Most of these major scholars are unbelievers like Ehrman (and his mentor Bruce Metzger)



Do you mean to say that Dr. Metzger was an unbeliever? While what we see in his RSV Oxford Annotated Bible (for example) represents a significant degree of antisupernaturalism, modernism, etc. (and of the type that I had to be disabused of as a young believer reared in a mainline church and a liberal Baptist college) I don't think I've ever seen him referred to as a rank unbeliever of the Ehrman type. To say that that degree of acceptance of Higher Criticism leads inexorably to rejection of the faith appears to me to be a somewhat different question. If I recall correctly Machen wrote that liberalism was ultimately a different religion but also wrote that despite this he saw qualities in some of his liberal German professors that led him to believe that they might be real Christians regardless. (My memory may be way off on this and am no Machen expert by any stretch of the imagination.) 

I do think the above is sufficient to remove him from the ranks of "conservative evangelicals" no matter how defined. Despite this, I've seen evangelical CT advocates (Wallace perhaps? among some others) refer to Metzger as an evangelical. I'm not interested in fighting over the evangelical label here or what motives some evangelicals would have of absolving what we would consider to be liberals of that charge. (Enns and Longman would be some more recent examples.) But your apparent reference to Metzger being an unbeliever caught my attention.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 11, 2012)

Chris, here's an old post on Metzger: Some thoughts on Dr. Metzger. Bart Ehrman was his protégé – and is now a world-class textual scholar, among the very best. Sad to say he is an enemy of Christ, and Christ's disciples.

-------

Here is Metzger & Co. on Matt 1:7 and 10, saying that Asaph and Amos are the apostle’s error (instead of the correct Asa and Amon in Christ’s lineage):

It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, Second Edition:


Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)​ 
In other words, because of the Committee’s presupposition “that the name ‘Asaph’ is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” (Ibid.) they decided that Matthew _had_ to have made an error, and this error is recorded in the “earliest and most reliable” MSS, and they weren’t going to tamper with “corrections” made by later scribes. “Like Duh, Matthew! Couldn’t you have found a reliable source!?”

But wait a minute! Although Matthew was the _human_ writer of the first Gospel account, *“All scripture is given by inspiration of God….*[and] *no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”* (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20)


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 11, 2012)

Steve,

Your response, while true in many respects, only raises further questions with regard to the question that I put to you. 

The relationship between Metzger and Ehrman is common knowledge. It seems to me that a fair reading of what I've posted would indicate that this is not news to me since it is noted in that very post! (I've also previously posted many times in this forum on this subject.) Much of the information contained in the post to which you link is contained in a book to which I refer in my previous post. Thus it can hardly be assumed that I am ignorant of its contents. I can only hope that you simply read my post in a cursory way and did not intend to insult my intelligence. 

I'm not an advocate of the CT and at this point basically identify with the Byzantine priority men like Pickering and Robinson. Thus I hope it is clear that I hold no brief for Metzger or White for that matter. 

I think that one can be guilty of some degree of unbelief (and in a serious way--and who can definitively say how serious?) in scholarship, teaching or otherwise and still be saved yet so as by fire. That was my point with the Machen reference. (That's not to say that those who err should not be solemnly warned, disciplined, removed from teaching positions, etc.) If you mean to say that you *know* that Metzger was a reprobate, it seems to me that such a statement is positively wicked and is a violation of the 9th Commandment absent some definitive evidence of him denying the faith outright. 

Must you stoop to using the rhetoric and tactics of the independent fundamental legalists (who are often little more than Semi-Pelagians to boot--i.e. patently unbiblical WRT soteriology to say the least) who make KJV Only an article of faith and a test of fellowship?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 11, 2012)

Jeremy, when Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was starting his heresy, the KJB was the foremost English Bible, so there was really nothing else for him to use. With the Oneness Pentecostals, who pretty much started (as far as I know) around 1913 in California under the influence of R. E. McAlister and John G. Scheppe, there was the Revised Version of 1881 in England, and the 1901 American Standard Version (the American version of the RV 1881), so the KJV was still the old standard, and most common folks – including the cults – used the KJV. Although when the 1901 ASV came out, using “Jehovah” instead of “LORD” for the Tetragrammaton, the JW’s started using that, although they didn’t get the right to publish it themselves till I think 1944.

Hello Jeff (post 27) – in his 2005 book, _Misquoting Jesus_, Ehrman says that the beginning of his loss of faith was when, at Princeton Theological Seminary, he’d written a good paper on an apparent discrepancy in Mark, sincerely seeking to resolve it and gain the approval of his professor; but the paper was returned to him with this note on it by the prof, “Maybe Mark just made a mistake”, and after thinking about it he said to himself, “Hmm . . . maybe Mark _did_ make a mistake.” He continues in the book,

”Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well.” (p 9)​ 
And from there he came to doubt that God had preserved His word period, and this led him to think that “if [God] didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.” (p 11) His fall away from faith in God continued (not that his faith was a true and saving faith to begin with, for Christ’s sheep never perish – John 10:27, 28).

It was years later, when considering the problem of human suffering, that shows how he gave up on any belief in God. In his 2008 book, _God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer_, he spells out _his_ problem with suffering. But in the 2005 _Misquoting Jesus_, in supplementary material at the end of the book, he makes it clear that, “The big issue that drove me to agnosticism has to do not with the Bible, but with the pain and suffering in the world”, and he could not reconcile this with the existence of God. (p 248)

In _God’s Problem_, he says, thinking about his early belief in God, “I still wondered, deep down inside: could I have been right after all? What if I was right then but wrong now? Will I burn in hell forever? The fear of death gripped me for years, and there are still moments when I wake up at night in a cold sweat.” (p 127)

His fear is appropriate; he must fear that – in light of what he once believed – the damage he is doing to the minds, and the faith, of God’s children is a dark evil. For example . . . I have been over 40 years devoting myself to solve the various apparent discrepancies in the Bible – through studying books specifically written to address these, as well as commentaries, prayer, etc – and it still is very painful to my mind to come across an apparent discrepancy I cannot answer fairly quickly. Yes, I do have a faith that there are no real discrepancies in the Bible; I know that my inability to answer any reflects on my poor and feeble mind, not on God’s infallible word. But it is still painful; like the mental/spiritual equivalent of a dislocated joint or a broken bone (little wonder I have gotten so many resources to answer such things; also, being a teacher of Christians, I have taken others’ doubts and hard questions to heart to be able to help them). Consider then, when a young believer in a college or university listening to him, or picking up one of Ehrman’s provocatively titled books in a bookstore, hears his poignant, witty, learned, sometimes charming (for the devil can be a charmer, a seemingly “nice and sincere guy”) diatribes against the Holy Bible and its God, listing alleged discrepancy after discrepancy – chapter and verse – and with his dark erudition driving home the (supposed) impossibility of resolving this (supposed) blatant evidence of error after error and contradiction after contradiction in this (supposed) hoax of a holy book which talks of a fantasy god who would allow such folly, etc etc. This has to have an effect – on _multitudes!_ I know a pastor’s son who was exposed to this kind of stuff (Ehrman has impacted faculties of multitudes of “Christian” higher educational institutions), and was troubled. After all, Bart Ehrman is one of the premier – the best of the best (as the world reckons best) – of Bible scholars on the planet. But he is in the employ of Satan. And BE has plenty of money, mucho fame, and a good life. Can the most charismatic of the world-class Bible scholars and textual critics be all wrong? Many ask this.

As I was saying earlier, Dr. White’s evidential approach in using the Critical / Eclectic Text to refute Ehrman doesn’t work completely well because Ehrman is so familiar with it and can cast much doubt on JW’s presentation.

Let me just say as an aside here, there is nothing wrong with using evidences in the service of illustrating a presupposition. Van Till used it (see Notaro’s book, for example: Amazon.com: Van Til & the use of evidence (9780875523538): Thom Notaro: Books), and it does not mean one is an Evidentialist if one does. I use evidences often. It is the _nature_ of JW’s evidences – and Wallace’s as well – that I think Ehrman likes to get hold of, because he can make it _seem_ that their evidences testify in behalf of _his_ view of the Bible’s unreliability. He is wrong, but he is good at spin – and it is hard to counter his spin using the CT / ET.

I have not seen anyone try to use the evidences that pertain to the Byzantine / TR / AV against Ehrman, so I don’t know how he would seek to respond to that. I keep on the lookout for such presentations. But this is what I am studying, and preparing for.

--------

Chris, sorry, I did read your post, but got caught up with the thoughts above. I would say this: whoever denies the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis – the creation, the Fall, the proto-evangelion, the “progress” of the human race from these beginnings – denies the basic realities of the human condition as the Scripture reveals them, and the need for the salvation that only God can provide, and that through Christ. *If* the Biblical beginnings of humankind are only myth (this includes the accounts of the patriarchs) – not to be considered historical, but only pertaining to “religion” – *then* the Christian faith is nonsense. I cannot imagine a living faith in Christ as the atoning Savior from the crushing weight of the guilt and power of sin in one who promotes such views. I _know_ I can be wrong about such things as who God saves – many such things are simply beyond my ken – however, when Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” When Paul says this, I see this aimed at those who _deny_ God’s creation, man’s fall, and his consequent need for an atoning Savior, for starts. Such, in my view, fall under the apostolic curse.

This has nothing to do with the King James Bible or the rhetoric of IFB “legalists” – _all_ Protestant Bibles contain this teaching. It’s too bad that too often these apparently despised fundamentalist Baptists are the only ones who have the discernment or the guts to cry out that “the emperor has no clothes” – i.e., our supposed leaders have not the robe of Christ as their righteousness. We have people editing and producing our Bibles we would not let anywhere near our pulpits or at the front of our Bible Study classes. Not all IFBs are such one must stoop to give them honor; some, although they err in doctrines we hold vital and dear, are at least our equals in godliness and fervency to save the lost.

Sorry again, Chris, for overlooking your important post.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 12, 2012)

Mark (GulfCoast Presbyterian), in your post #18 you said, “I truly do not comprehend the zeal for the so-called ‘TR’ ” of the KJ people. Well, for one thing, it is the Greek text which underlies their English translation. But for another, it represents the last development in a line of transmission from the apostles to the Greek-speaking churches in the Aegean area, Rome, and Palestine (note: no autographs / apostolic originals were sent to Alexandria), and which remained in a mostly pure form in the Greek churches until the Reformation, and the final compiling of the Greek edition from which the King James Bible was translated. As I indicated earlier, a clear and succinct presentation of this early history may be found in Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text III_.

The value of this is to counter Bart Ehrman’s contention that there was no continuity of text in the (as he alleges) sloppy copying of the NT manuscripts which became more and more corrupt as the centuries progressed, till the state of the NT text was mutilated beyond repair. His main song is that since God did not see fit (this before he gave up on the idea of God) to preserve the Biblical manuscripts (in effect saying we do not have them in any sort of intact form), there is no way to assert they were originally inspired by Him. But those of the TR camp do assert that God did indeed preserve His words, and they say that thus and thus He did it. They say, we do not have to futilely hunt for the preserved readings in the haystack of thousands of MSS (depending on the supposed expertise of academics to sort it out for us), but we have a Bible we can hold in our hands: and what we hold is the King James Bible – which is the reliable word of God insofar as it was faithfully translated (and it was) from the preserved Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Now this is not to start another TR / AV vs CT / ET war or debate, it is just the delineating of the approach to countering Ehrman’s attacks. I mean, if you confiscated David's sling and stones – saying, we don’t like these stupid and old-fashioned slings among our weaponry – before he went out to meet the giant, well, the story would have ended differently. David was also despised by his brethren for his audacity in presuming to be able to do what they had not been able to do. 

As I learn more in my reading, and listening to debates, I’ll communicate it here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 14, 2012)

I could not get the 1st or 2nd of the Wallace-Ehrman debates (and my budget being so tight I can’t buy them if I found them), and after searching around, I am currently listening (on Youtube) to “Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans debate the question ‘Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus? Part 1’ on Jan 19, 2012 at St. Mary's University.” Part 2 is to be the next night at Acadia University, both in Nova Scotia, Canada.

On the one hand it was a disappointing debate, as it was more like a demolition derby, neither of the men upholding the affirmative of the topic. Although Dr. Evans (CE) occasionally _sounded_ like a conservative Christian, when under cross-examination by Dr. Ehrman (BE) he was forced to fly his true colors. For instance, he admitted that BE was right that the numerous “I AM” sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John were not authentic, although they did – he said – accurately reflect the theology of the Johannine community which generated this gospel. The two scholars have been friends for years, and I suppose CE is the more conservative of the two, but that isn’t saying much, from my vantage.

Here is a roughly quoted saying of Ehrman at around 1:15:00 in the debate: “virtually every scholar on the planet concurs that the gospels are not historically accurate – i.e., they ‘provide historically false information’ and do not provide a reliable account of what Jesus did and said – except for fundamentalists and very conservative evangelical Christians . . . who have some kind of inerrancy view of the Bible”.

I am sorry to foist this kind of garbage on you folks here at PB, but this is the form of the attack taking place in the world around us, and influencing many. A big part of BE’s argument pertains to apparent discrepancies in the various gospel accounts which he insists are real discrepancies. He is wrong, and men have devoted a good part of their lives laboring to solve these so-called discrepancies. I will list a few such books, as they are important to have in one’s library – especially if one is into apologetics:

_New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties_, by Gleason Archer
_Hard Sayings of the Bible_, Walter Kaiser
_When Critics Ask_, Geisler and Howe
_Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible_, Haley
_Things Hard To Be Understood_, David Cloud

Another favorite tack of BE is to impugn the history of the transmission of the manuscripts in the 1st and 2nd centuries by, on the one hand alleging extremely poor scribal habits to the copiers of the originals, and of the copies from then on, and on the other denying the authorship of the gospels and epistles to those to whom they are normally attributed. One good book on this – among many – would be R. Laird Harris’, _Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures_ (make sure to get the 1995 or 6 editions, not the older ones). 

If anyone comes across a refutation of BE from the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Textus Receptus traditions please let me know.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 14, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Here is a roughly quoted saying of Ehrman at around 1:15:00 in the debate: “*virtually every scholar on the planet concurs that the gospels are not historically accurate* – i.e., they ‘provide historically false information’ and do not provide a reliable account of what Jesus did and said – except for fundamentalists and very conservative evangelical Christians . . . who have some kind of inerrancy view of the Bible”.
> 
> Another favorite tack of BE is to impugn the history of the transmission of the manuscripts in the 1st and 2nd centuries by, on the one hand alleging extremely poor scribal habits to the copiers of the originals, and of the copies from then on, and on the other denying the authorship of the gospels and epistles to those to whom they are normally attributed. One good book on this – among many – would be R. Laird Harris’, _Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures_ (make sure to get the 1995 or 6 editions, not the older ones).
> 
> If anyone comes across a refutation of BE from the Byzantine/Majority Text or the Textus Receptus traditions please let me know.



The "virtually every scholar" argument is a logical fallacy. In many such instances someone is not considered a "scholar" if they don't toe the party line. "Anthropocentric Global Warming" is a good example. The scientists who don't believe in it and disagree with the party line are disparaged as not being "scholars". We see the same attitude against scientists who believe in Creationism and not Evolutionism. As to his contention that only Christians view the gospels as historically accurate, he forgets all those secular scholars of the past 100 years who also view the gospels as historically accurate and of course ignores the Roman historians who confirm the testimony of the gospels. He has done nothing but allow his prejudices to determine what is accurate information and who is a scholar. Such "reasoning" would get a failing grade in an undergraduate logic class. He knows better, but he also knows that many (majority?) Christians will not be able to shred his "argument" nor will they know the secular authors who disagree with his view. And he is relying on the inherent bias of the lost to not question his statements. His view is just another expression of the 19th century Higher/Lower Criticism view put forth that eventually culminated in the "Jesus Seminars". 

As to poor copying of the manuscripts during the 1st & 2nd century, the easiest refutation to such assumptions is to play the skeptic. How does he know what the copying habits of the scribes were? As to denying the authorship of certain books, this is another version of the Higher/Lower Criticism from the 19th century. There are hundreds of volumes written by Christians and secularists that refute this view. Which Ehrman should be aware of and if he is he is deliberately deceptive and if he is not, he is ignorant. Either one discredits him. I'd also point out that being Christian does not disqualify a person's work on this subject as Ehrman posits. Yet another basic fallacy on his part. To refute him, you need little more than a good logic text and perhaps knowledge of the history atheistic Bible criticism to refute him. The history is optional; his arguments are self-refuting.

I wish Dr. Bahnsen were still alive to debate him. I suspect it'd be similar to Bahnsen's debate with Stein.

Brandenburg, whom I mentioned earlier, has some refutations to Ehrman's positions. Bahnsen's lectures on Practical Apologetics, The Debate That Never Was, The Apologetic Implications of Self-Deception, Michael Martin Under the Microscope, & A Disciple of Christ also will provide enough material to refute BE. Though Bahnsen wasn't TR, he does provide enough materials in these lectures to completely refute and destroy Ehrman's "arguments" that you mentioned. And he covers how to do it in a way that leaves the unbeliever with nothing to turn to, save God himself. As you know Ted Letis also provided much information that refutes Ehrman, as did the much maligned Dr. Edward Freer Hills.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I could not get the 1st or 2nd of the Wallace-Ehrman debates (and my budget being so tight I can’t buy them if I found them), and after searching around, I am currently listening (on Youtube) to “Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans debate the question ‘Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus? Part 1’ on Jan 19, 2012 at St. Mary's University.” Part 2 is to be the next night at Acadia University, both in Nova Scotia, Canada.
> 
> On the one hand it was a disappointing debate, as it was more like a demolition derby, neither of the men upholding the affirmative of the topic. Although Dr. Evans (CE) occasionally _sounded_ like a conservative Christian, when under cross-examination by Dr. Ehrman (BE) he was forced to fly his true colors. For instance, he admitted that BE was right that the numerous “I AM” sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John were not authentic, although they did – he said – accurately reflect the theology of the Johannine community which generated this gospel. The two scholars have been friends for years, and I suppose CE is the more conservative of the two, but that isn’t saying much, from my vantage.
> 
> ...



Steve,

As I've noted, James White has spent _hours_ taking Ehrman apart sound bite by sound bite with many of these kinds of statements. The anti-supernatural, "Gospels aren't history because they are supernatural", skipticism of Bart is analyzed in great detail. James' Dividing Line programs are available for you to listen on this. I don't remember when he does this but you can find them if you look and they're free. His refutation of BE on these points would be very useful regardless of whether you agree with James on other aspects of the debate.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 14, 2012)

Thanks, Rich – I'll go to the DL archives and see if I can't find James' material on this. Perhaps you do know I reckon White a valuable brother in the fight for the Faith; he is also an excellent exegete and theologian (Cf his books, _The God Who Justifies_, and, _The Forgotten Trinity_, just for starts). This may get some KJVO folks mad (that I highly esteem and like him), but remember, brethren, there are days coming – I think _soon_ – when we must band together in mutual affection despite our relatively minor differences, for strifes and bitterness in our midst while in the furnace of persecution and affliction will grieve the presence of Christ's Spirit among us, Whom we will need in His fulness and power to be able to stand. The matter of our Bibles is important, but not moreso than our abiding in love – a thought few give much heed to these days.

Chris, thanks for your remarks – great points!

Want to get to bed early, so to be fresh for worship of our King tomorrow.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 15, 2012)

Steve- I am very impressed with the work that you have done so far on this important topic and I will praying for you as you proceed. Scholars such as Ehrman do much harm to the faith and it is important that believers take a stand and do battle against the deception of the world.

Rich- Good points about James White. Although we may disagree with him on certain matters, it cannot be denied that he is a true Christian brother who does daily battle in the trenches against the various and sundry enemies of God. 

Keep up the good work gentlemen.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 15, 2012)

Hi:

Hey Steve, I have been thinking, and praying, more about your conundrum. BE, it appears to me, needs to be convinced of the existence of God and the infallibility of Holy Scripture. As you and I know one cannot "argue" another into the Kingdom of Heaven, and it takes the Spirit of God speaking through the Word of God to change the heart. But, God does use means, "We may be induced..." (WCF 1). You may want to consider defending the authenticity and inspiration of the disputed passages, the Comma, the Pericope, and/or the long ending of Mark as a point of contact with BE.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: I agree with you concerning Dr. White.

-RPW

PPS: By the way: If BE knows that there are passages that are not authentic, then it means that he does know that there are passages which are authentic.

-RPW


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 15, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> PPS: By the way: If BE knows that there are passages that are not authentic, then it means that he does know that there are passages which are authentic.


Perhaps but, for BE an "authentic" passage would just mean that we can know for sure that the human author wrote that passage. Assuming he was even convinced that we could determine, with 100% accuracy, what the original autographs contained, he would still believe they were the writings of men and men only.

Notice that Ehrman was swayed by "...what if Mark was wrong...." That's not an issue of textual criticism but whether or not God could have _ever_ superintended His Word in such a way as to preserve the human authors from error. One is not even thinking in the same league as a believer at that point. As an example, just today the text was on Matthew 6:25-34 and part of the preaching was reminding us of the long arm of the Lord. In our humanity, we are apt to look at things as they are and conclude that millions in the wilderness cannot eat meat for a month. Even Moses was sucked into this thinking. God reminds us of His long arm and challenges our unbelief.

When Ehrman was challenged, initially, about whether Mark was wrong it had everything to do with the question of whose story we're going to accept at a fundamental level. Is the arm of the Lord too short to preserve from error even the initial report of the Gospel of His Son? It calls into basic question the existence of that God and whether or not He is or ever has been desirous that His Word be known and that none of it should fall to the ground. Ehrman bought into that lie at the fundamental level and from that point the issue of how one handles the text of mere human authors is really a moot one. Nobody really cares about textual criticism for other works of antiquity because we know they're simply the words of men.

This, to me, is the heart of the issue. At the end of the day, those that believe in the God of the Scriptures believe He has Providentially preserved His Word through the ages not because of any academic commitment but, because, fundamentally that God is a speaker. He makes Himself known and the community of faith not only reads the Word but is _created_ and _formed_ by that Word. That Word makes alive to create Worshipers of God and that Word hardens hearts and causes men to gnash their teeth in hatred of their Creator. 

The question for the Living is not whether Providential preservation has occured but a "how" just as it is in other disciplines where we see a muddled human history (think of the major ecumenical councils) but confidence that God works through human agency to His ends. I was thinking on this the other day and was reminded of Edersheim's reports about the legendary memory of Rabbis who had committed the whole of the Law to memory such that, if even all copies were lost, a group of Rabbis could get together and re-produce the entire Law (including where every jot and tittle went). Many of these kind of men persecuted Christ or even His followers after Him but it was through the agency of their fervor to commit things to memory that is but one example of how God works through unholy vessels to accomplish holy ends.

The question for the Walking Dead never even rises above the basic question. The method of how a God they don't worship inspires a Word they don't believe in and then preserves a Word they think is just a human community's thoughts is really so much academic curiosity. From an internal critique perspective, it is strange that anyone cares about this issue. Nobody worries about the preservation of the works of Homer. The reason they care to celebrate doubt about the Scriptures transmission is because they know, deep down, they are handling holy things but not only do evil but heartily encourage others who do the same.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 15, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> PPS: By the way: If BE knows that there are passages that are not authentic, then it means that he does know that there are passages which are authentic. -RPW


Not necessarily - it would simply mean that the evidence on other points is inconclusive. The fact that I can definitively state that _you_ were not in the library with Colonel Mustard doesn't mean I can assume everyone else or even anyone else was.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Nobody really cares about textual criticism for other works of antiquity because we know they're simply the words of men.


Scholars, especially those who are perfectionistic purists care. It is a far different level, of course, in part because the textual criticism of other ancient texts is far simpler (there being vastly less manuscripts to work through), and chiefly because the issues that hang upon them are of historical or poetic, rather than religious, interest.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 15, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Scholars, especially those who are perfectionistic purists care.


I guess I should qualify that most people don't care in the sense that we're concerned regarding the integrity of Scripture.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 15, 2012)

Hi:

Rich and Ruben: Thank you both for your responses. I want you both to know that you two are, in my opinion (including Steve), among the godliest men I know on the Puritanboard, and I respect and admire your posts immensely.

Speaking simply on the human level, and hoping that the Spirit of God would convict BE of his errors, then I think it would be prudent to contend with BE concerning his objections to Inspiration. Rich, you have rightly pointed out that BE started his objections over a passage in Mark. If, for example, BE can be proven wrong in his supposition concerning that passage, then would it not open himself up to the idea that the Scripture is truly Inspired? The list I gave is based on a purely Byzantine understanding of the Scriptures. Clearly, Dr. White and Dr. Wallace would not contend with BE on those issues - because they agree with BE on those matters. But, if there is another passage in Scripture that may be more personal with BE, and serviceable to the apologetic method with him, then it certainly seems to me that we should use that as a means for his conversion.

Ruben: I think if we can shake his faith in his skepticism, God willing, then maybe he will be converted. Anyway, I did not do it, Mr. Plum did it with a revolver (a .45 Smith and Wesson with HydraShock ammo), in the living room! 

Blessings brothers!

-Rob


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 15, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I could not get the 1st or 2nd of the Wallace-Ehrman debates (and my budget being so tight I can’t buy them if I found them)



Steve, 

This book resulted from the 2008 Greer Heard Forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary aka the first Wallace/Ehrman "debate." You may be able to preview enough of the book on Amazon to be able to ascertain whether or not it would be worthwhile. The reviews are decidedly mixed. 

I don't know what form the subsequent debates between Wallace and Ehrman took, but this one evidently wasn't a debate in the usual sense. The principals give a relatively brief presentation and then are questioned by several evangelical theologians. A man in the employ of the seminary who is involved in organizing this forum every year told me several years ago that "We try to avoid the White style debates." (I think I may have mentioned something about White debating Ehrman soon or something like that.) I could probably find out what the cost would be for the audio, but I think you're quite right with regard to the expense, unless something has changed in the past several years. (The reader will draw his own conclusions regarding the choice of publisher as well as the format.) 

Your statements about Dr. Evans are consistent with what I have heard from other sources. It sounded like he may make Dr. Wallace look like a fighting fundy by comparison! One acquaintance who is not given to hyperbole in such things told me last year that he was present at a talk in which Evans basically undercut the case for inerrancy. 

_When Critics Ask_ appears to be available online here. (Whether or not posting that PDF is authorized is another question.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 16, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Rich and Ruben: Thank you both for your responses. I want you both to know that you two are, in my opinion (including Steve), among the godliest men I know on the Puritanboard, and I respect and admire your posts immensely.


While I appreciate the confidence, I really have too much sin that you do not see and do not share your opinion about myself.




CalvinandHodges said:


> Speaking simply on the human level, and hoping that the Spirit of God would convict BE of his errors, then I think it would be prudent to contend with BE concerning his objections to Inspiration. Rich, you have rightly pointed out that BE started his objections over a passage in Mark. If, for example, BE can be proven wrong in his supposition concerning that passage, then would it not open himself up to the idea that the Scripture is truly Inspired? The list I gave is based on a purely Byzantine understanding of the Scriptures. Clearly, Dr. White and Dr. Wallace would not contend with BE on those issues - because they agree with BE on those matters. But, if there is another passage in Scripture that may be more personal with BE, and serviceable to the apologetic method with him, then it certainly seems to me that we should use that as a means for his conversion.


I'm sorry but I don't understand the question. Note that what I said was Ehrman was challenged to consider that Mark was wrong. That's in the _autograph_ itself. Even if Ehrman was convinced he had the original copy of the Gospel of Mark then it does not follow he will believe in inspiration if, at a basic level, he denies inspiration. This he did when he considered the notion that Mark could be wrong as plausible.

Hath God really said?

For liberals (and sadly most Christians today), they consider the Scriptures to be the words of men who were bound to a 1st Century culture (at least for the NT). Whether it be a Moltmann looking for the kernel of truth inside the husks of myth or the "limited inerrancy" of a Fuller Seminary, the problem is not at the point of transmission of the autographs but the _penning of the autographs themselves_. Is Paul just a misogynistic homophobe with the occasional gems of truth mixed in with his backwater shortcomings or did the God who formed the heavens and the earth breath out the Words that he penned?

You see, I don't find the fundamental problem to be at the point of transmission in today's Church but at the issue of original authorship. Most people I know don't even question whether the texts represent the original but it simply doesn't matter because they don't treat it like the Word of God anyway. Ehrman's departure from the faith did not begin with doubt about transmission but a fundamental disbelief in God that He could even inspire the Scriptures to begin with.

Now, is it immaterial to the Church as to how the Scriptures are transmitted? Of course not. Fools like Ehrman make money off of stuff that we've known about for centuries but he presents it as so much sensational new material and makes a good racket off the ignorant. Unsuspecting members of the Church who have never considered how the text was transmitted are sometimes shaken by the idea that variants come into the text but I've never met a man or woman who was Christ's who did not seek answers to these problems. The people that walk away for these surface level attacks on the confidence of the text (or for that matter how one harmonizes the Synoptics) are not truly striving to enter the narrow door. We need to pursue them of course but let's not pretend that textual transmission issues, any more than the question of whether there was one angel or two at the tomb, is the reason that people are leaving the faith. BE is just a huckster that exposes the weakness of our Churches in the equipping of the Saints.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 17, 2012)

JB,

Providentially, this crossed my desk this morning:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/Review%20307%20Erhman%20Wallace%20Review%20-%20Crampton.pdf

"But even though we do not 
possess the autographic codex (i.e., the physical 
document), it is a non sequitur to assume that we 
do not have the autographic text (i.e., the words) in 
the _apographa_. The good copies which we have, as 
a whole can and do retain the latter without the 
autographic text."

Citing: Greg L. Bahnsen, “_The Inerrancy of the Autographa_,” 
Inerrancy, edited by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: 
Zondervan, 1980), 172.

"The church of today needs to do its duty. It needs 
to recognize the hand of God’s providence and 
confess the Byzantine text to be the canonical text 
just as the Reformers did in the _Helvetic Formula 
Consensus_, the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, 
the _Second London Baptist Confession of Faith_, 
and the _Savoy Declaration_. Just as the church has 
made a definitive statement regarding the authentic 
27 books of the New Testament, it must also make 
a definitive statement on the authentic New Testa-
ment text. True and full canonicity calls for both."

"...The Ehrman—Wallace interaction, in particular, demonstrates the degree to which 
mainstream evangelical text critics, like 
Wallace, have embraced ‘reasoned eclecticism.’ The two men appear to agree more 
than they disagree when it comes to specific 
disputed New Testament texts…. Despite 
Wallace’s protests, one wonders if evangelical text critics will also eventually follow 
the trend toward abandoning the reconstruction of the text of Scripture in its 
original form as the goal of text criticism. 
What impact will this shift have down the 
line on the way of evangelical Christian 
scholars, who have embraced the modern 
critical text of reasoned eclecticism, view 
the reliability of Scripture, the doctrine of 
inerrancy, and the authority of Scripture in 
general? (23-24)."

AMR


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 17, 2012)

Thanks for that, Patrick – Gary Crampton writes some good stuff!

Chris, thanks for that additional info – much appreciated!

Rob, I'd have to agree with Rich – knowing the wretchedness of my own heart I would not vaunt my godliness in the least. One of the paradoxes of the Way is that when a person seeks godliness they discover how ungodly they really are and how much they live by sheer grace – truly undeserved favor, and how transforming and joyous that is!

I'm getting a lot of good information both contra Ehrman, and also learning about Ehrman's style, both his strengths and weaknesses. It's an old maxim, one should study one's adversary carefully (if one can), as it is written, "The righteous _man_ wisely considereth the house of the wicked . . . A wise _man_ scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof" (Prov 21:12a, 22). Much like a fighter studies the moves of his opponent before tangling with him.

I'll post, at some point, some of the more excellent refutations of Ehrman's pitch – URLs, books, articles, etc. Thanks all, for all the input – it's appreciated!


----------



## Wayne (Jul 17, 2012)

Something else that comes to mind, particularly as above there is the 2d quote from C&H, 1st line, praying for the man's salvation, it strikes me that you might add to your preparation a study of the debate between Francis Schaeffer and Bishop Pike. 

As I remember, in that debate, Schaeffer was clearly not concerned with winning a debate but decidedly concerned for the man's eternal soul.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 17, 2012)

Something else that comes to mind, particularly as above in the 2d quote from C&H, 1st line, praying for the man's salvation, it strikes me that you might add to your preparation a study of the debate between Francis Schaeffer and Bishop Pike. 

As I remember, in that debate, Schaeffer was clearly not concerned with winning a debate but decidedly concerned for the man's eternal soul.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 18, 2012)

This thread jogged my memory and reminded me of an article Jim Elliff wrote a while back. I think it was in response to the debate between Evans and Ehrman. 

Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 18, 2012)

Chris, I think this article you linked to – Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision – is right. It is contrary to the interests of the church, and seminaries, to bring a false teacher into their midst to air his views, as it does more damage than good.

Myself, I do not think to have such a debate with Erhman, and that would be one reason, and another is that I’m slow on my feet with repartee, and better at writing and careful research. Of course if it were a matter of being confronted publicly, that would be different, and I would go into a different mode than formal debate.

The article you referenced gives examples of the harm done souls – even believing Christians – when the likes of Ehrman are let loose in the precincts of the godly. I remember reading of the harm done by Charles G. Finney, who – being an eloquent and powerful orator – overwhelmed godly and learned pastors with his fiery bombast, even to the point of getting them removed from their pulpits by deceived congregations. Biblical truth is not always served well by debates, as those in the wrong may be the better debaters.

I but hope to give a succinct (I will really try to keep it brief) written presentation such as will give a person understanding to dismiss Ehrman’s false claims.

Another aspect of Ehrman’s influence on text criticism is that men are rising up to deal with his false assertions (it has ever been so in the history of the church: defenders of the Faith coming forth to contend with false teachers); two examples: Michael Spotts posted a couple of links here – http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/dr-williams-criticizes-dr-erhman-provides-new-evidence-75170/ – where Dr. Peter Williams brings good information to the issue; and also Richard Bauckham’s book, _Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony_, along with some Youtube clips of him on this same topic: A brief clip here, and a longer one: The Gospels as Historical Biography. I was familiar with Bauckham's work on Revelation, but not on this subject.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2012)

Craig vs. Ehrman on the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection:

William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman Debate "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

AMR


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2012)

Wallace's Review of BE's _Misquoting Jesus_:

[url]http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart[/URL]


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2012)

_Historic Views on the Preservation of the Biblical Text_ by P. S. Ferguson

View attachment 2980

AMR


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I could not get the 1st or 2nd of the Wallace-Ehrman debates (and my budget being so tight I can’t buy them if I found them),


As noted here, the DVD for the second debate on sale here:
http://kunaki.com/Sales.asp?PID=PX00ZCAJ99

The first debate is in book and Kindle form here:
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800697731

If budget is an issue, Steve, PM me with your mailing address and I will buy the items and have them shipped to you as my small contribution to your endeavor to glorify God.

AMR


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 20, 2012)

Patrick, that’s generous and gracious of you! I will PM you.

I have Paul Ferguson’s paper, Wallace’s "The Gospel According to Bart", and the Craig-Ehrman debate. I have amassed what material I could find (and there's always Interlibrary Loan – but one's gotta read quickly and there are no renewals).

I don’t think further studying Wallace and Ehrman will be that profitable to me, as Wallace does not confront BE properly in my view; a while back I interacted at length with an essay of Wallace here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/#post198366. I think, for the same price (I’d be very happy with used copies), these might be more on target:

The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenburger and Kruger

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham

------

Wayne, you bring up a good point re desiring the man’s conversion. Giving a worldly example: if there is shooter taking people out, task #1 is to neutralize him – no use talking sense to him at this juncture. The Scripture says this in a similar _spiritual_ situation: Titus 1:10-11, “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers . . . whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”

I don’t imagine myself doing this, but I can play my small part, Lord willing, and perchance when he is humbled he may be given grace to repent. We can pray to that end.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 21, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> _Historic Views on the Preservation of the Biblical Text_ by P. S. Ferguson
> 
> View attachment 2980
> 
> AMR



Is this his 4-part article Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 21, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Patrick, that’s generous and gracious of you! I will PM you.
> 
> I have Paul Ferguson’s paper, Wallace’s "The Gospel According to Bart", and the Craig-Ehrman debate. I have amassed what material I could find (and there's always Interlibrary Loan – but one's gotta read quickly and there are no renewals).
> 
> ...


No problem, Steve. Send me the shipping info and I will have them sent to you. Better yet, just need a email address that you would use at Amazon.com and I will get you a gift card and you can do your own shopping, brother!

AMR


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 21, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> Is this his 4-part article Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation?


 I do not know. It is an 84 page treatment and may be a compilation.

AMR


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 21, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Is this his 4-part article Historic Views of the Church Concerning Preservation?
> ...



I'm not sure it's the 4 part series covered in DBS eNews issues 92 - 95. I don't think there are 84 pages amongst them.

Waiting for it to be approved so I can read it.


----------



## caddy (Jul 21, 2012)

This link works. The above link in Steve's Post does not.


CCWblog.org: Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision


----------



## tommyb (Aug 8, 2012)

Poimen said:


> For what it's worth, a minister colleague recommended this book: Amazon.com: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (9781433501432): Andreas J. Kostenberger, Michael J. Kruger, I. Howard Marshall: Books



Kostenberger's book is excellent. The major thrust, though, is to refute the Baur thesis rather then dwell on the textual issues.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 9, 2012)

Yes, Tom and Daniel (Poimen) – this is a great recommendation; I started reading it a couple of days ago (thanks to the generosity of AMR / Patrick!). He goes, as you said, Tom, not after the textual issues, but the paradigm enunciated by Walter Bauer in the ‘30s (only translated into English in the ‘70s) and lately elaborated upon by Bart Ehrman. To get an understanding of this I think is foundational to getting a grasp of what Ehrman is about.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenburger and Kruger.

I also started reading Bauckham’s, _Jesus and the Eyewitnesses_ (I read a lot of books at once – but every college or seminary student does the same). Now_ he_ _does_ go after the textual issues, but in the broad sense of their historical relevance based on the eyewitness testimony they contain – first person accounts of interaction with Jesus and/or observation of Him – “. . . both a reputable historiographic category for reading the gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus” (p. 5). This book is a tour de force against the “methodological skepticism” that pervades so much New Testament scholarship these days. (Thanks again to AMR!)

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 16, 2012)

Greetings Steve:

I happened upon the YouTube debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace posted by the Ehrman Project. In watching it I was struck by Bart Ehrman's use of Higher Critical thinking in his presentation. When Dr. Ehrman points out that 2 Corinthians "actually" contains 2 letters put together he is no longer arguing from Lower Criticism, but from the Higher Critical philosophy. There are no manuscript evidences that support the thought that 2 Corinthians contains two different (or five different!) letters of Paul.

Blessings in your studies, brother!

-Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2012)

I’m coming back to this thread as I just finished another reading project and am starting again in Kostenburger and Kruger’s (K&K), _The Heresy of Orthodoxy_.

It has been important for me to realize that one of the bases of Ehrman’s point of view is that, following Walter Bauer’s hypothesis, he maintains that orthodox Christianity was not the original “Christianity”, but it took over much as a neighborhood bully takes over his turf, knocking down opposing and earlier versions of the Christian faith. I don’t think I want to get and read Ehrman’s books in this area; it is sufficient for me at this point to understand K&K’s analysis and refutation of both the Bauer thesis and Ehrman’s expansion of it.

K&K go about examining the numerous refutations of the Bauer thesis, point by point, showing that Biblical Christianity was the original in various parts of the Roman Empire, certain major cities in particular. They also note the peculiarity that Bauer did not much avail himself of the New Testament data in compiling his research and drawing his conclusions.

I am aware that K&K really have their sights set on Ehrman (and somewhat Elaine Pagel – another Gnostic Gospel promoter who has bought into Bauer), so this is a fascinating read for one determined to understand the mind-set of Bart Ehrman. To refute his textual false assertions is only part of the task, for he seeks to revise the very histories both of the early church and the composing and transmission of the NT gospels and letters.

He has _fortified_ himself in his errors (his mind a satanic stronghold), and the reward of his labors is wealth and fame, for a brief spell. A tragic object-lesson to us all.


----------

