# A brief update from the James White and Bart Erhman debate



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jan 23, 2009)

As I posted several days ago, I attended the James White and Bart Ehrman debate in Ft Lauderdale on Wednesday (1/21).

The debate was very interesting and I encourage everyone to get the video once it is released.

There was soooooo much said and perhaps I am missing more substantial points,,,, anyway,,,, here is what stuck out in my mind:

1) I was dismayed to hear that Bart's Misquoting Jesus book was on the New York Times bestseller list. 

Folks, folks, folks, James White says (and I completely agree with him!) that the animals are now out of the barn regarding educating the laity regarding transmission and translation of the NT. If the average person knew how we got our bibles, I think it would be shocking for them. 

2) I thought (?) that James White said that Bart was nominated for Man of the Year by Time? Is that true? I could not find that on the web though.

3) Bart presented himself well and James White did a great job of defending the text of the Bible.

4) Bart essentially has 3 nuclear missiles he loves to launch:
4.1) The earliest manuscript fragments we have are 2nd and 3rd generation; "...and since we don't have the original autographs, there is no certainty regarding what they said..."
4.2) The greatest amounts of variants are in the earliest manuscripts; "...and since we don't have the original autographs, there is no certainty regarding what they said..."
4.3) "It seems to me that if God inspired the NT, he would have preserved the NT which leads me to believe that He didn't inspire the NT."

As of result of all of points and subpoints in #4, Bart and his peers around the world (he names them) have completely given up trying to ascertain what was in the original autographs and are content to try and determine what was in the 2nd and 3rd generation manuscripts. Also, as Dr. White mentions in one of his podcasts, the leaders of Higher Textual Criticism are also now exegeting the manuscript variants. 

It appears that the Higher Textual Critical movement has drifted far away from the where the Alands, Metzger, Warfield, etc. once were. They were content to try and determine the content of the original autographs.


Bart certainly went after James during the cross examination. I really, really thought Dr. White did a spectacular job defending his position. I think it a gross problem that Dr. White is the only person I am aware of in the public square doing this kind of thing. As I mentioned previously, we had better get serious about defending the scriptures because if Bart and his peers undermine the Bible, it undermines everything. There needs to be a whole lot more than Dr. White out there in the public square.



Some thoughts on Bart's comments in #4 above...

Let's start with 4.3 first. If Bart wants to take that position, then we also have no idea what is in ANY document from antiquity. Let's just burn everything and quit talking about it. Also, if 4.3 applies to the NT, it certainly applies to the OT as well. The gospels don't indicate that Jesus had the original autographs in tow for the OT and He was certainly quoting it constantly and talking about every jot and tittle!


4.2/4.1 is problematic and needs the time and attention of those in Higher Textual Criticism to carefully and thoughtfully discern what was in the original autographs. As mentioned previously though, Bart and his peers have simply given up and sound disinterested in this task.

Dr. White love to tell a story of a professor (Dan Wallace? Spelling?) that asks one of his students to write a story. Then he asks 10 others to copy the story. He asks one to be sloppy, one to do it fast, and the rest to do their best to copy it. Then, he destroys the original. In his 30 years of doing this exercise with his students, they were always able to piece together the original within one word and that's usually an issue with determining if the word was "too" or "also".


Lastly, although Bart has some good points, he also constantly wants to beat the drum that changing one word in a book changes the entire meaning of a book. Hogwash. Watch the video once it comes out for particulars. I thought that was very unconvincing and struck me as an attempt to be sensational. Just to cite one example, the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) is agreed by all (including conservatives) to be a later edition to the manuscript tradition. Bart likes to say that without that verse we can't have a doctrine of the Trinity. See what I mean? Any good bible student could build the doctrine of the Trinity from the NT without 1 John 5:7. 


I'm sure I've missed commenting on a lot but I wanted to give the PB a sense of what was said to the best of my ability.

We really need to support James White and ask the Lord of the Harvest for more James Whites; Bart simply can't lecture the country and write New York Times best sellers without a rebuttal.


A good resource for everyone on the PB is Philip Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary which does a good job of commenting throughout the whole NT on the variants and manuscript fragments. Everyone should have a copy of that. You can buy it here: http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=845

Also, if you're hardcore and have Logos, you can purchase the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB) Version 2.0 which is available here: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3108


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for the update! I have been greatly blessed by some of James White's work.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for the summary. I'm sure that White's website will have some reporting soon. 

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for the update.

I will likely buy this video when it comes out.

James and I are friends and I understand what he's saying about an ignorant laity but I'm not so certain that teaching _everyone_ in the Church about Critical Textual issues is the highest priority. I know he says that but I think there are plenty of other basic orthodoxy issues that are often more immediately pressing especially as people come into your congregations from neo-Charismatic backgrounds. 

The textual issues I consider to be but one of several pieces to this puzzle:


> Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are of the Word of God?
> 
> A. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty7 and purity;8 by the consent of all the parts,9 and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God;10 by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation:11 but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.12


In other words, I agree that James is doing good work in defending the purity of the Word againsts fools like Ehrman but Ehrman's problem is not his knowledge of the textual critical issues but that his mind is at enmity with God. James, in many DL's, has even noted that Ehrmann takes particular relish in casting doubt on only the Scriptures as a historical document but never complains about "misquoting Tacitus" or "misquoting the Gospel of Thomas".

I believe that Pastors need to be equipped to answer these kinds of sensationalistic and shallow arguments _as they arise_ among their members. It's funny because I had a friend 3 years ago first tell me about the book and I told him it was likely liberal nonsense from the sound of it. Ironically, he's one of many Christians that is a Christian by his emotions anyway and all the textual doubt didn't really phase him anyhow because he is "more spiritual than religious".

The majority of the people in the pews aren't going to be picking up this stuff even if it is a best seller and so I think, instead of exposing everybody to textual matters that might go over their head, it's probably best to respond to it where it flares up. There's no reason to confuse some people in the pew who have a basic (and right) "God's Word is God's Word because God says it is" understanding. For those who are wandering astray from that then I think the Pastor and Elders need to be equipped to counsel those individuals on that but in-depth broader instruction is liikely to displace other issues of orthodoxy that the congregation is also lacking in.

I don't want to make that sound like a criticism on James but I see people talking about this and, it is important, but it's not a "drop everything else you're teaching and make sure everybody understands textual critical issues" kind of important. I haven't met anyone who has left the Church in droves and, even on this board, there are plenty of issues discussed that are undermining the Church but I haven't really heard Ehrman's work as particularly affecting any of the Churches represented by members and pastors here.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The textual issues I consider to be but one of several pieces to this puzzle:
> 
> 
> > Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are of the Word of God?
> ...



Excellent points, as always.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't want to make that sound like a criticism on James but I see people talking about this and, it is important, but it's not a "drop everything else you're teaching and make sure everybody understands textual critical issues" kind of important. I haven't met anyone who has left the Church in droves and, even on this board, there are plenty of issues discussed that are undermining the Church but I haven't really heard Ehrman's work as particularly affecting any of the Churches represented by members and pastors here.



I can't say how many have left the church because of textual critical issues; but, I think it's naive to imagine this isn't having an impact on the laity's view of inerrancy. What is that old saying? A falsehood repeated continuously eventually becomes truth? Bart and his peers are doing a great job of undermining inerrancy with little challenge.

Let this situation go unabated as it is right now (I'm not talking about writing books on inerrancy, I'm talking about debating and meeting Bart on his own ground) and don't be surprised if you've got a major, major battle in years to come in your own church with inerrancy.

I wouldn't stop whatever sermons series you are currently on BUT I would begin addressing this in 2009 and beyond.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Naive? 

Again, I didn't claim it was having no impact. What I'm saying is that not *everybody* is reading Ehrman and, hence, not everyone is impacted.

The Prayer of Jabez had an impact on the laity.

The Purpose Driven Church and Purpose Driven Life had an impact on the laity that, quite frankly, outstrip anything that Bart Ehrman has done.

There are all sorts of dangers and false teachings that enter into the Church. My point was not to bury our head in the sand on them. I also praised Dr. White that he is debating Ehrman so I don't understand where you are getting the idea that I think we shouldn't be meeting this challenge in the public arena (and I'm glad James is).

What I am saying, however, is that the fact that Ehrman is out there and that his book is on the NYT Best Sellers list is not a reason to necessarily comprehensively educate the entire Church on textual critical issues. It assumes that everybody is impacted by the controversy. Why not look at the NYT Best Seller's list and the books that Oprah is promoting because those are probably affecting far more.

Pastors and Elders _should_ be equipped to respond to this and a host of other issues to answer objections as they arise but to prescribe a teaching schedule for 2009 assumes you know the spiritual state and challenges of individual congregations.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Naive?
> 
> Again, I didn't claim it was having no impact. What I'm saying is that not *everybody* is reading Ehrman and, hence, not everyone is impacted.
> 
> ...



I would tend to agree. Oprah's book club junk has far more of an influence than Ehrman. I ask the people in my congregation before if they've ever heard of him; I can't think of anyone who has said they have.

Think of what an impact Linsay's _The Late Great Planet Earth_ had in the 1970s and beyond. The church is still untangling that stuff.

But I would also say that text critical issues are not unimportant. People need to have confidence in their Bibles. But the catechism is correct in that ultimately this is God's revelation and He must persuade the believer. Anything short of this is a failure to submit to His Lordship, which is a large part of Ehrman's problem.

If you read White's blog, one of the things that came out during the debate is that Ehrman admitted he is utterly ignorant of Islam. This is the chair of the religious studies department at a major university. Granted, his expertise is in the NT, but to know nothing about the Koran, and to be unwilling to apply his brand of skepticism to works like the Koran (or Tacitus or Thomas, as SF said before) shows the foolish inconsistency of his thinking.


----------



## caddy (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thanks for the update.
> 
> I will likely buy this video when it comes out.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent thought here! Why is it Erhman NEVER complians about
"*misquoting Tacitus" or "misquoting the Gospel of Thomas" ?*

* *** smiling ****


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Naive?
> 
> Again, I didn't claim it was having no impact. What I'm saying is that not *everybody* is reading Ehrman and, hence, not everyone is impacted.



Rich,

I think this is the relevant point. A pastor needs to be familiar with these issues, but I am not sure it does any good to dump them on the laity. If anything, I think James White may have a bit of a skewed perspective on how widespread the issue is because of the arena in which he operates. I am not being critical - because I am glad he is operating in that arena! I just mean that when you spend all day debating the issue, and having people from everywhere around the country call in and blog, and write emails, it can seem overwhelming. It is a bit like the PB. You would have a very skewed view of the American church (even of the American Reformed church) from it.

I have a well educated congregation. We are a PCA church. We are in a (relatively prosperous) suburb of a major city (Houston - the 4th largest in America). I have about a half dozen or more people with PhDs in my congregation. Almost every adult has a college degree, and the bulk of my people have a graduate degree. I have three graduate degrees, one in Classics. And yet I doubt I have 5 people who have ever heard of Erhman, let alone who have read him. These guys are talking to themselves. Don't get me wrong - people are attacking inerrancy all the time in more "popular" venues. That is where the attack needs to be met, in my opinion.

By the way, I just love the point about Tacitus. The average "critical scholar" has no idea how it would decimate ancient studies to apply his unbelievable skepticism about transmission to Latin and Greek works. In most instances we have one or two late manuscripts of a work. That's it. Often they are partial.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2009)

Fred,

I would rather NEVER disagree with either you or Rich. Perhaps you are both correct that Bart is known only in circles where he would not be of much additional damage anyway. Because he is a Moody/Wheaton alum, MANY people in those circles know of him, most of them drawing horns on his picture. They are unlikely to be much affected by him, however.

But, in an era when studies show that 20 somethings get most of their "news" from Jon Stewart, don't underestimate Bart. When _Misquoting Jesus _was released, he did the round of talk shows (radio and television). I vividly remember his Jon Stewart interview (replete with a large graphic of the cover of his book as the background). Was it enough to cause most viewers to have an Ehrman-esque loss of faith? No. But, it was plenty to plant the seed that "oh yeah, the Bible. I heard some expert on Jon Stewart explain that we don't even know what it really is. He was funny."

And, don't underestimate the way in which a bestseller works its way into the culture. Fred, when YOU (old man) went to school, Ehrman was unknown. I'll bet that many of the profs in secular universities today have read him, however, and have dropped little cynical heresy poop into their lectures, referencing Ehrman as THE answer to why the Bible is unreliable in response to questions by Christian students in class.

For instance, when I went to school Dawson was not on the scene. But, it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that his _God Delusion_ was one of the hottest books on university campuses in the last couple of years.

Attempting at some kind of perspective . . . I would say that it has an impact on the culture in an analogous way to the _DaVinci Code_. Do weak minded people lap it up? Sure. Is it the crux of the Gospel or evangelism? No. And, without a movie with telegenic Tom Hanks, Ehrman will likely not impact the culture all that greatly. 

As to pastoral practice, it was always my approach to give a pretty simple defense of the CT and why the Marcan ending and the _Comma Johanneum_ is not a threat to inerrancy.

Actually, the way persuasion theory works, sometimes it is more effective to acknowledge an oppositional view, explain it in a VERY rudimentary way, and shrug it off as weak rather than attempt to engage it at the PhD level. Even lay people without one of the PhDs in Fred's congregation can see that there are some questions about 1 John 5:7, the ending to Mark, and the woman "taken in adultery." I found that whenever I taught on the inspiration of the Bible or about Bible translations, a simple reference to "older" manuscripts seemed to satisfy my folks. But, then again, we were just dumb Baptists in an upscale suburb of L.A. and did not live in the "relatively prosperous" 4th largest city in America.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jan 23, 2009)

caddy said:


> Excellent thought here! Why is it Erhman NEVER complians about
> "*misquoting Tacitus" or "misquoting the Gospel of Thomas" ?*
> 
> * *** smiling ****



He did in the debate. He readily admits that scholars are challenging these and other works in antiquity.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2009)

BTW, full disclosure . . . I love to listen to Dividing Line (since a post where Rich mentioned it many moons ago). It always does my heart good to see White take on the heretics; less so when he debates good and Godly folks like William Shisko! 

Ehrman's pedigree of Moody, Wheaton and Princeton is interesting. I thought that someone would say that Ehrman was proof that if one wants to stay orthodox, he should stay with a broad evangelical educational track (even dispi = Moody) rather than attend Presbyterian schools (Princeton).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Again let me underline: I am very glad James does this work. I am in full support and I will learn from it. I also believe Pastors and Elders ought to equip themselves, and not be ignorant, in order to answer these questions when they arise in their congregations.

I also agree that "twenty somethings" will read this the same way they read the feces coming from the New Atheists. Be prepared to answer them.

I'm only noting that Church-wide education of the issue may not be necessary in all cases to the degree proposed.

It's not a choice between burying one's head in the sand and addressing it. It's a choice as to what your congregation's needs are.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2009)

Agreed, Rich. I guess it all depends on what is the degree being proposed. Sometimes apologetics becomes the tail that wags the dog. And, we all tend to think that our own particular specialty or discipline is the "most important" one for everyone to know. For example, Dr. White's work with the KJV-only crowd probably exaggerates its importance in the conservative Christian community due to the people he actually deals with on a regular basis. It is the same in medicine: go to a surgeon and he will see the solution in cutting; find a typical GP and he will use more conventional drug therapy; see a "holistic" doc and you will likely be told the value of herbs and macrobiotic solutions. You know, give a boy a hammer and the whole world looks like a nail.

No substantive disagreement with you guys. I merely think that Ehrman is likely to influence culture in a somewhat analogous way to the New Atheists. The university crowd will be the first and most significantly impacted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Let me also qualify that I don't necessarily consider James to be unbalanced. I've met him in person and had a lengthy conversation with him. He interacts enough with the "extremes" of Reformed and non-Reformed folk that it gives him a good insight as to what imbalance does to a man. It's possible, in this case, he might be overstating the case about the need to immediately inform the laity at large on this issue or I'm mis-interpreting him but I don't want to give folks the impression that I'm saying the man himself is generally unbalanced or wants apologetics to drive the train. If anything, I appreciate the fact that he's one of the few apologists with some notoriety who makes Systematics drive Apologetics and not the other way around.

Also, given the level of regular personal attack and venom from the pit of Hell that is directed at him by every cult he takes on, he is a remarkably gracious man.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for the updtae,I'm wondering when Alpha and Omega will have this available does anyone know?
Grace and Peace 
Brian
P.S I LOVED Few are Chosen-his debates with George Bryson-God Bless Dr.White!


----------



## TimV (Jan 23, 2009)

> If anything, I think James White may have a bit of a skewed perspective on how widespread the issue is because of the arena in which he operates.



Hittin' the ol' nail on the head. Cognitive dissonance.

I was absolutely sure Ron Paul would get 15% of the vote, since all the educated Calvinists I knew were going to vote for him, and the money bombs etc.. just reinforced my thinking. Then I went down to Magic Mountain theme park for Home School day, and the thousands of middle class Evangelical owned cars there didn't say Ron Paul; if anything they said McCain-Palin.

I went home and told my friends that we all were suffering from cognitive dissonance. They disagreed, but I was right, as they found out.

James White has been so busy with the tiny-to-the-point-of insignificance sect called the "AVers" that he (probably) thinks that this sub-sect of Evangelicals (mainly Fundies) is more common and influential than they are, and reacts accordingly.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Also, given the level of regular personal attack and venom from the pit of Hell that is directed at him by every cult he takes on, he is a remarkably gracious man.



Thanks for pointing this out. I met him two years ago on the cruise that took place after the debate with Bishop Spong. I made a joke about baptism and he got VERY snippy with me (and it wasn't even about _infant_ baptism!). But I suppose if one is constantly being attacked, one can get overly defensive about some things. This helps put it in better perspective.


----------



## bened (Jan 23, 2009)

Great cliffnotes summary, David, thank you.

Mp3s of the debate are now available at AOmin.org store.

Only $6 for the entire debate. What a deal. 

Marrow Man, I was at the Spong debate but not on the cruise. White has his moments just like the rest of us. Nonetheless, I found him to be a kind and gracious as well. I can only imagine the Rhino hide he's had to develop to make it through these last 20+ years. (Such is useful for apologists _and_ pastors.)

I know they run on a skeleton crew at AOmin, hence, it's a wonder they do all they do. 

Can't wait for the DVD.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 23, 2009)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent thought here! Why is it Erhman NEVER complians about
> ...



Not only that but I am certain Mr. Erhman would reply that the reason he challenges the scriptures so fiercely is that people claim that they are divinely inspired. 

Of course the other side is that he is an apostate and must not only convict his audience but even himself that he was justified to abandon the faith once for all delivered to the saints.


----------



## dalecosby (Jan 23, 2009)

I just thought I would add links to the audio for the debate which is now available on aomin.com

Alpha and Omega Ministries

That is the mp3 of it but there is also a CD available.

There will be high quality professional DVDs available soon but the mp3s are great for those who can't wait to listen


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jan 23, 2009)

While I agree that the laity may not be familiar with Ehrman there are many seminarians who are. Not only are they familiar with Ehrman but you can all but see the seed of doubt grow in these students lives...some to the point of dropping out of Christianity.

See Ehrman also has a textbook which is used in liberal seminaries entitled, _"The NT: A Historical Introduction to the Christian Writings"_ In this he does an excellent job of planting doubt. The "wisest" of the students lose all faith in the NT. My debates in seminary now that we have had NT studies start off with any and everything but quickly focus on the inerrancy of scripture and end there. There is hardly anything to discuss when you are speaking to someone whose standard is their own personal revelation and nothing you present or say will change their minds. 

_"We can never know what is real..."
"The Bible is a collection of stories nothing more..."
"Yes, yes...the Bible was inspired by God but written by men who added their own agendas..."_

I have witnessed the disillusionment in the eyes of fellow seminarians. The only Christianity left to them is experiential and that is what they take back to their congregations. The talk around the table at school after NT studies is mostly how to preach & teach from the Bible since it cannot be trusted. Most decide that they will continue to preach the same as before but refuse to spend time studying the "agendas of ancient men" and offer a bible verse and then go off talking about whatever comes to mind.

I agree that the laity is not familiar but Ehrman is having a much greater impact. Gravity works on you whether or not you have read any of Newton's work on the subject. As long as there are more liberal seminaries than conservative Ehrman's work needs to be addressed but only as it comes up. I would say offer a basic class during 2009.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2009)

bened said:


> Great cliffnotes summary, David, thank you.
> 
> Mp3s of the debate are now available at AOmin.org store.
> 
> ...



It is so good to see another Fuller grad who is still orthodox!


----------



## MW (Jan 23, 2009)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> As of result of all of points and subpoints in #4, Bart and his peers around the world (he names them) have completely given up trying to ascertain what was in the original autographs and are content to try and determine what was in the 2nd and 3rd generation manuscripts.



Nothing new here; the basic aim of the critical method is to establish the text as it existed about the third to fourth century. The critical method strips itself of fideistic presuppositions and therefore makes no pretension to being able to determine the exact condition of the original text, accepting that there is no source material for such an endeavour.


----------



## BJClark (Jan 24, 2009)

> I can't say how many have left the church because of textual critical issues; but, I think it's naive to imagine this isn't having an impact on the laity's view of inerrancy. What is that old saying? A falsehood repeated continuously eventually becomes truth? Bart and his peers are doing a great job of undermining inerrancy with little challenge.



Just because a lie is repeated continuously doesn't make it true..it still remains a lie..it will always be a lie no matter how many people proclaim it as truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2009)

Admin Note - I split off some posts that were tangentially related to the debate but a distraction from the thread's intent.

1. Take the TR/CT debate elsewhere. This is not the thread for it.
2. It is not true that James denies providential preservation. He denies as certain form of providential preservation. That may cause some to conclude that "because he denies my form of providential preservation he denies all providential preservation" but in the interest of promoting Truth and not bearing false witness do not charge an elder with a wholesale denial of providential preservation.

I'm going to split this argument off. Remember, Gentlemen, that there are certain places to debate certain issues. We need not give the world a reason to look on and mock when they see one of our own debating an enemy of the Gospel. We may disagree with the methodology and there are places to debate that but there is a certain sense in which we ought to rejoice that Christ's Word is being defended.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 24, 2009)

I am looking foreward to seeing this debate. I find White's books to be excellent (especially the Forgotten Trinity) but I do find his radio programme to be a bit bombastic in style for my tastes. Perhaps this is due to culteral differences but I do prefer the more measured tones of the White Horse Inn.

Saying that I do subscribe to his podcast and listen to it, er, um, religiously, so even with this qualification I do think that it is well worth listening to.


----------

