okay James thank you again very lively
Republic I have a number of questions
some of them can be answered very
quickly I think first in your opening
address who says that there are only
1500 to 2,000 viable differences among
our manuscripts where did you get that
number
I said viable there probably I said
viable and meaningful where did you get
that gun I got that number from a number
of studies by Dan Wallace that examined
both the issue of viability as far as
our manuscripts behind a reading as well
as those that actually changed the
meaning he is estimated actually I went
above his number he's estimated 1100 to
1400 at that point I went above that
number just simply so as to be careful
so this is Dan Wallace's opinion I think
Dan Wallace is an excellent scholar and
he very regularly has accurate numbers
especially in the material that he just
wondering how somebody knows that it's
both viable and important I mean for
example you don't think mark 141 is
important or that Hebrews 2:9 or
December so does he think those are
important we would both say those are
important sir
so those never said otherwise those are
included in the 1,500 to 2,000 they
would be yes sir okay it just seems like
it's a little odd to come up with a
number like that that it's probably more
guesswork than anything but okay you say
there are 12 12 manuscripts written
within a century of the books of the New
Testament that's news to me
what are these twelve manuscript I'm not
sure why it's news to you sir dr.
Wallace said the same thing to get the
Greer heard for him as well in his
opening statement so I'm not sure I
don't understand how that can be news
but if you would look for example at
Phillip comforts a New Testament text
translation commentary and again since
that dr. Wallace presented that to you
I'm asking what the manuscript are
a whole list well I can look one oh wait
I know P 52 yes there are a number of
course partly would be the issue of when
we date those that New Testament those
New Testament manuscripts yes it would
but for example P 32 of titus is quite
possibly that early as well if you want
an entire list I can look it up for you
here it'll take me some time to the Dan
Wallace says something doesn't really
make it so I didn't say just Dan Wallace
I am reading something other than Dan
Wallace in front of us here P 32 s dated
to the Year 200 well again there are
many people who believe that the numbers
that are assigned the back of nestea
Holland are extremely conservative and
obviously there are many for example TC
skeet conservative would mean that
they're dated later than normal or
earlier I don't understand being dated
not as early as they could be well yeah
you could date anything to any date you
want but the question is what grounds
actually that's that's correct and are
you familiar with TC Skeets a discussion
of the how these variants I got a I
dunno TC ski yes okay
oh well and you're aware of the fact
that on a number of the papyri
manuscripts listed in the Nessie all in
text he would actually give a TC ski
when does he date p32
well again I don't believe that he
addressed b32 specifically I believe
that his was a manuscript of John that I
was reading about but are you are you
not aware of the fact that variation
these questions I think you're correct
that's right so I think that this number
12 is exceedingly high and is the number
200 within three hundred years and so
that's why I was just wondering I'm
sorry two hundred with failures you said
you that there were two hundred managed
I said 120 sir Oh 120 yes that's still
probably high let's go to this business
with the Byzantine and the Alexandrian
texts which you said you weren't talking
about manuscript you were talking about
I believe you said printed collations is
that correct yes sir can you tell me
what a collation is well I was using the
term there to speak of
the collection of the readings of a wide
family of manuscripts into one
representative text such as you have in
the majority text or you had in that
particular instance the Westcott hork
text that's different from a collation
of a specific manuscript where you take
a base text and then you work through a
particular manuscript providing every
variation from that base text
historically the TR has normally been
used but thankfully in recent years
codex Vaticanus has frequently been used
as the base text for collation things
like that so there's two different ways
would you know your latter definitions
what a collation as the other isn't a
collation it's a printed text which is
which is quite different but let's let's
talk about collations for a second
suppose you compare two collation of a
Byzantine manuscript with an Alexandria
manuscript do you think you would get a
95 percent level of agreement of course
not I never even intimated it's okay how
high would the agreement be well again
as you pointed out in your Braille
compilation that you need to have about
a 70% to assign a manuscript to a
particular manuscript family and so
Byzantine text would fall into the 50%
however that's not the assertion I was
making we understand your assertion but
now you're telling me that if you cook
all eight a Byzantine manuscript against
an Alexandrian manuscript there'll be at
50% well I'm so I'm really surprised
that you're not following what I'm
saying sir
because obviously as you know when
you're talking about percentages of
variation you're talking about not the
word total words in the manuscript and
their readings you're talking about the
variations I was talking about the total
words as I displayed before the people I
was giving a computer ran Christian when
you call a Byzantine in an Alexandrian
manuscript what is the level of
agreement on variants or word sir on
words words and variants are two
different things
under centage the percentages in fact
you're the one who's talking about words
as being 95 percent in agreement I'm
asking you if you don't call a to texts
because but you call a to manuscripts
what is the level of agreement in the
words the words would again a collation
the percentage of difference is in the
variants not in the total words of the
manual
sir and what I was presenting that you
don't know the answer no sir I think
your question is comparing apples and
oranges yes yes let me ask this
have you ever call ated a Byzantine
manuscript a Byzantine manuscript no sir
I've not okay have you college it an
Alexandrian manuscript I have worked on
sections in in seminary yes sir have you
college in Alexandria manuscript against
a Byzantine manuscript using the TR if
you would call that as a it's not even a
Byzantine manuscript so I've never put B
against a medieval minuscule no okay
well the reason it matters is because
you're making a statement about
Byzantine and Alexandrian text yes sir
but in fact when you compare the
manuscripts with one another there's 95
percent agreement seems to me to be to
be somewhat specious number because in
fact is that a question sir I'm getting
there okay
isn't it a specious number no sir it's
not because memory you seem to refuse to
allow what I presented to these people I
ask anyone in the audience
go get Bible works load Westcott and
Hort load the majority and majority text
activate the module that compares them
and see for yourself I sprinted please
luckily I said that in my presentation I
even stopped and said now these are not
manuscripts these are printed text it's
a very important distinction I don't
have a timer how much time do we have 12
minutes 12 minutes oh very good
okay ah let's see so um where do we want
to go from there let's talk about your
main point which seems to be that the
original text is preserved somewhere in
the manuscript tradition that we have
all these variants and that in every
case one of the variants is the original
text is that your understanding yes I
believe in the tenacity of the text that
when we have a variant the reason that
we can invest the time and looking into
it is that one of the readings that is
there is the original reading I don't
believe we need to engage in conjectural
and
datian just simply to fill in gaps as we
do with most classical works okay
and why do you think this because that
seems to be the conclusion of not only
kurt island and extensive discussion of
that i cited it in my opening statement
but that also seems to bend the belief
of a large majority the textual critical
scholars down through the ages from
Tischendorf onwards of Moises Silva Dan
Wallace and others have also enunciated
the exact same things so it's because
authorities have told you this well and
I also find it to be very consistent
with my own study of the textual
variations in a New Testament okay would
you agree that Alden app is probably the
Dean of text criticism in America today
I think Eldon up yourself and DC Parker
are probably the biggest names right now
unfortunately I would say that the
perspective that you are now pursuing
and as us also said the past 10 or 15
years you've pretty much given up on on
working on the original text that's sort
of been done so okay so f in America and
Parker he's English and maybe Keith
Elliot in England is a big name how
about in Germany who would be the
authorities now living with the islands
out of the out of the picture are we
still living
I'm sorry bar barbar still living yeah
but I don't think she's publishing right
she's retired from the from the
Institute so maybe Klaus vauxhall or
Gert mink or yes well I'm sorry I don't
keep up with German textual criticism
today how about in France I don't know
anybody in France they're probably
Christian burner on foo these are these
are the biggest names in the field F
Parker Eliot all on Votto mink and foo
so far as I know none of them agree with
you on this particular point about the
preservation of the text Allen doesn't
even though it's in the book who wrote
that book Kurt and Barbara Holland yeah
Court I don't know about Barbara all on
but what do you think about the movement
that Parker's especially driving which
states
in fact it no longer makes sense to talk
about the original text I think it is an
abandonment of I agree with Moises
Silva's comments you you're familiar
with us oh yeah I agree with Moises
Silva's comments in response to
specifically DC Parker when would you
like me to to read what he says or just
uh is that since you know assigned to
kill go ahead sure actually he he says
nor do I find it helpful when David
Parker for example sanctifies his
proposals by a theological appeal to
divinely inspired textual diversity
indeed textual confusion and
contradiction that is supposed to be a
greater spiritual value than apostolic
Authority actually his primary exhibit
that he gives in response to that is
your book Orthodox corruption in
Scripture where he says you cannot read
a page he says there is hardly a page in
that book that is not in fact mentioned
such a text or assume it's accessibility
that is the original I'm not sure if
you've changed your viewpoint since 1993
but Moises Silva certainly would seem to
feel that if you now agree with Parker
that you have yeah I have changed my
view a little bit but my question is
really about Parker why is it that David
Parker thinks we can't get back to the
original text well there are a number of
reasons of theological and genealogical
obviously I have focused on his
theological reason in that he asserts
that we have made an artificial
distinction between text and tradition
which I certainly would strongly
disagree with but as you yourself have
said as far as the current state of the
manuscript tradition is concerned we're
as far back as we can get I think the
term that you used in an SBL article a
few years ago was we're now we're just
tinkering as far as that is concerned
and so apart from some major find a Dead
Sea Scrolls level New Testament type of
find there seems to be a fair amount of
skepticism and being able to get far any
farther back yeah I agree that could you
tell me when I've got like a minute and
a half left absolutely um so um yeah
well let's approach this from a
different angle
this business with P 75 to be a lot of
people have used this and
I mean let me say you know I know you
keep saying I don't understand things
but you know the really understand them
I just I don't buy them and so let me
tell you let me ask you about this P 75
to B P 75 say it was copied in the Year
175 and say B was copied in the Year 350
and that 350 is not a copy of B 75 but
it's very close to P 75 that's an
argument for showing that there was a
consistent line of tradition at least in
that Alexandrian proto or the proto
Alexandrian line right all right what
does that so the fact that somebody in
the middle of the fourth century
accurately copies a text what does that
tell you about somebody copying a text
in the year 70 a number of things what I
was attempting to explain and and you
may consider it bogus and dismiss it it
doesn't change the fact that what I was
tempting to present was this issue of
multi locality and the multiple lines of
transmission that this these two
manuscripts are probably closer together
than any other two manuscripts from that
time period in their readings and yet
they are not in the same specific line
of transmission no that's incorrect
they are both protolith they're both
proto Alexandrian manuscripts aren't
they as I put on the screen sir what I
meant by that was P 75 is not the direct
ancestor no but there are still in the
same line if there's so much in the same
line of tradition that they're cousins
virtually aren't they okay I'm
attempting to answer but you're just
arguing with my answer I I'm not really
you're not seriously going to contend
that OB 75 and B are not in the same
line of tradition I obviously defined
the term line there as direct lineal
genealogical ancestor which I did in my
opening statement as well what I'm
saying is while they're both clearly
proto Alexandrian manuscripts they are
in the same stream they represent two
different lines within that stream
because sign a at I'm sorry Vaticanus
contains readings that are older than P
75
let me ask this how many genealogical
lineal manuscripts do we have related to
one another
jeanny I don't even understand what you
just said that they're not in a lineal
genealogical line with each other in
other words one is not a copy of another
exactly p75 of other manuscripts do we
actually have all I said sir is that p75
is not what was copied to make Vaticanus
i don't have any other way of expressing
the statement I mean listen watch I'm
asking how many copies of manuscripts do
we have in other words where we have the
original and the copy you mean where we
absolutely know what was which one was
copied from which you're saying B is not
a copy of p75 because it contains
different and you're made more ancient
readings yes yes I got that so but I'm
wondering if that's usual or unusual do
we have copies of manuscripts in the
tradition we don't have well I don't
know if I can think of you're asking
something like 1739 where we know
something about the nature and the
origination of what it is a copy of or
or even says they or something like that
but very rarely do we know the exact
lineal parent of any manuscript in the
first thousand years exactly I mean so
the fact that they are one isn't the
copy of the other is is in fact
completely normal right because you
don't have copies yes sir but they are
so closely related that they're in the
same line of tradition yeah of course
yes sir okay good
what then does the fact that B is close
to P 75 but not a copy of P 75 be copied
in the year 350 say what does that tell
us about copying practices in the year
70 I said what it does is demonstrate
that the onus is upon the skeptic to
assert that there is corruption in the
primitive period because since we have
multiple lines coming out of the early
period and yet it's the same New
Testament that if there was some kind of
primitive corruption you would have
multiple corrupted lines coming out that
is very massively from one another and
that is not a yes oh oh that's not the
case now so you said in in seminary you
did some correlations of early
manuscripts tell me how do the early
manuscripts stack up against each other
in comparison with the later manuscripts
well as I've said in my published works
the vast majority of meaningful and
viable variants take place within the
first 250 300 years of the transmission
history of the New Testament that's a
given
yeah let me let me reword it if you
compare to Byzantine late manuscripts to
one another of course will they agree a
lot or not very often
well of course so the the variations
between a 14th century Byzantine Minya
schools are almost totally based upon
scribes falling asleep or slapping a bug
while they're writing what about the
early manuscripts the early manuscripts
because as I said in my opening
presentation they're being done in a
very different period of time we're very
rarely did Christians have access to
scriptorium Zoar things like that
because of persecution taking place the
destruction of texts and things like
that there is a much wider variation
between them so the earlier the
manuscript the more differences there
are between them as p72 demonstrates
these men were not by and large whole
p75 is different but p72 p66 these were
not professional scribes one minute I'm
sorry okay so let me just say so the
point is is that the earlier you go the
more different they are so you just
extrapolate that the earliest we're
probably the most different let me ask
about p72
where you you resonate with this
particular text you said that has second
Peter and Jude in it what other what
other documents are found in P 72 there
are some non canonical documents in P 72
oh my recollection was at first 2nd
Peter and Jude were the only canonical
documents in it right so I'm just
wondering about you're resonating with
this document I mean do you think the
scribe thought that what he was copying
with scripture well I don't think that
you can simply jump the conclusion that
because scribes included books in a
single codex that meant that they
believed that everything in that codex
was necessarily Scripture there are all
sorts of works that were considered to
be very beneficial for the reading of
people that were included in codices
that were not necessarily canonical yeah
I just thought that was odd then that
that particular management
one that you resonate with because it's
the earliest attestation we have with
the protoevangelium yo Kobe time okay
good thank you
dr. airman you said in your rebuttal
that p-52 contains a major I believe it
was you can correct me please if I was
wrong major textual variant it changes
the meaning of the text do you have
access to a textual variant there that
is not listed in the Nessa Holland text
it's it's the restoration in the lacunae
as Metzger points out in his manuscripts
of the New Testament of the of the
absence of the words it a s-- to table
before LA Luther and there are a couple
of other variants I mean there's a full
discussion of it in Mexico's book on the
manuscript so that ends it and you would
consider this to completely change the
meaning of the text no okay all right
you and I changes the meaning of the
text okay you know I think anybody who
thinks that the words of the New
Testament are inspired has to think that
the words matter and so if the words
change that matters alright doctor dr.
Ehrman uh since you disagree with
evidently Curt Holland on the issue of
tenacity could you list for us some
variations in New Testament where you
are willing to assert that none of the
extant readings any main strip tradition
could possibly be the original no I
think there's always a possibility it's
not a question of possibility it's a
question of probability of course
anything could be possibly have been
original the original author might have
written nonsense and why not it's
possible and later scribes might have
corrected that nonsense so one has to
weigh probability it's it's interesting
that Westcott and Hort
the two giants in this field in the 19th
century were quite insistent that that
most of the text of the New Testament
was preserved in a codex like codex
Vaticanus and yet they they resorted to
conjectural emendation on a large number
of occasions if you wanted an example if
you want just one example I mean I don't
know how much sensible making in English
but one common one that my teacher bruce
metzger used to talk about as being
possibly
a strong case for emendation is first
Peter chapter 3 verse 19 which follows a
creedal statement of about Christ the
Greek text well guess I've ever read it
in English says Christ suffered for sins
once and for all the righteous for the
unrighteous in order that he might lead
us lead you textual variant there to God
having been put to death in the flesh
but may having been made alive in the
spirit and then chapter 19 then the
verse next verse says and ho chí theis
and fula cabe new masih paru theask hey
Ruxin in which also he preached having
gone to having having gone forth he
preached to the spirits who are in
prison boyeur and others including
Harris have proposed emendations at this
point because well for grammatical
reasons but also because they think that
in fact it might be a mistake that in
fact this is talking about the old early
Christian tradition about Enoch who who
is preaching the preaching of Enoch
according to some of the apocryphal
materials so I mean it strikes me that's
a plausible place where there might you
might need an imitation so what what
percentage do you believe of the New
Testament is impacted by viable meaning
textual variants I've never put a
percentage on something like that
because I'm not sure their percentage
actually means anything I mean for
example if I if I speak a sentence in a
hundred words and I change only one of
the words but it would the word that I
change is whether I say the word not or
not the entire sentence is reversed in
meaning well it only a 1% change but
might be really important so I don't I
don't think percentages I've never
really tried to calculate percentages
because I don't think they matter you
have often said that there are verses
where variants change the meaning of an
entire book could you give us some
example
a versatile book yeah sure I think that
I actually do think that if Hebrews 2:9
said that Jesus died apart from God that
there is no place in Hebrews then where
Jesus is said to have died by the grace
of God and that the meaning now I think
a route for Hebrews means that Jesus
died like a full flesh-and-blood human
being without any divine comfort or
support if the reading is not chorus the
chorus though they died by the grace of
Coyote died by the grace of God then in
fact you do have the teaching that Jesus
death was an act of divine grace in
Hebrews which otherwise you don't have
and yet when you argued that point in
the Orthodox corruption of Scripture did
you not argue that chorus they you is
consistent with the theology of Hebrews
yeah the variant changes it how can you
argue that it's consistent theology of
Hebrews if not said of course I'm saying
that chorus if depending on which
variant you have the meaning of the book
changes so nowhere else in the book do
you have this this idea of Jesus's death
that is that would be presented Hebrews
2:9 based upon reading one 10th century
manuscript and in Origins manuscripts at
least some of words as manuscripts you
said the majority but I don't know where
Origen actually said that I'm sorry I
don't understand your question so your
assertion then is that the book of
Hebrews would not present that view of
the atonement of Jesus unless you have
that reading in Hebrews 2:9 elsewhere
with it it just does nowhere else does
Hebrews say that Jesus died by the grace
of God this is the one place I
understand that but you believe that the
original is chorus because that is
consistent with the writing of Hebrews
with a theology even this variant
changes that away from it ok I
understand I'm just saying on the
unbelievable radio program in London you
discussed the length of time that exists
between the writing of Paul's letter to
the Galatians and the first extant copy
that being 105
years you describe this time period as
enormous that's a quote
could you tell us what term you would
use to describe the time period between
say the original writings of Suetonius
or Tacitus or Pliny and their first
extant manuscript copies very enormous
sort of ginormous would be a good one
ginormous okay oh joy I mean ginormous
doesn't cover it the New Testament we
have much earlier attestation than for
any other book from antiquity what you
can't do is then say well then you can't
trust any book from antiquity okay yes
right that's right so all right so it
would be correct to write a book called
misquoting Suetonius absolutely scholars
do this and others write books all the
time about how you don't know the word
about what Plato actually wrote or what
Homer wrote or Suetonius or Tacitus II
rippity this is just what scholars do of
course you of course there are scads of
books on just these topics and so when
you cite them in your works you will you
will say according to the best sources
and and will will question the
reliability of Suetonius or gospel times
there's no there's no scholar who's an
expert in Swat Aeneas or Cicero or the
Gospel of Thomas who would tell you that
we absolutely know what these texts
originally said so when they when you
say know what these texts originally
said but they will believe that we have
a sufficiently clear knowledge to quote
Suetonius you quote Suetonius don't you
yes of course I quote the manuscript
tradition of suet Onias I mean it's just
understood among scholars what you're
quoting and so you say in your books I'm
not really quoting Suetonius I'm just
this isn't really what he said I'm
saying that we don't have the original
text for any writing from the ancient
world the New Testament is no different
just as you can't establish the original
text of the New Testament because you
don't have sufficient evidence you can't
establish the original text of Suetonius
because you don't have original evan for
some of these some of these authors I
mean the manuscript tradition is
pathetic I mean for some very important
works from antiquity we have one
manuscript
that's a palimpsest and so I mean yes
absolutely we have exactly the same
problem and when you say that well
nobody goes on about the Gospel of
Thomas absolutely wrong scholars of the
Gospel of Thomas talked about this all
the time and this is a major issue
scholarship I'm sorry I didn't say that
they don't discuss such things sir but
anyway Peter Williams of Cambridge
suggested that if you were to edit an
edition of the Greek New Testament using
all your own decisions regarding textual
variants that it would differ less from
the nestlé and ubs platform than the
Textus Receptus does would you agree yes
so you would say if you included all of
your own readings such as depending on
codex bezzie and mark 141 for the
reading of anger would you would you put
that in your in your text yeah I would
okay and yet the resultant text would be
less different than the King James is
from the new American Standard if it was
translated I'm sorry you lost me there
because I thought we were talking about
Greek well yes but I'm trying to give an
illustration to people in the audience
the King James is translated from the TR
the numeric standards translate from the
na 27 or actually any 25 and the last
one was 26 but the point is that the
differences in readings would be less
than you have if you're sitting there
with the King James versus a new
American Standard would that be correct
I don't know I've never I've never
actually thought about it I mean it
seems to me it would make a big
difference whether you want to say Jesus
got angry at a leper or whether he loved
him I mean it seems pretty significant
okay and looking at that particular
particular one you you do believe that
orga Stice is the original heir
that's right would you comment on what
has been said by dr. Parker for example
where he says the more he studied codex
Bezeq and apprentice the more he's
become convinced that it's unique
readings especially when they're alone
are insignificant if you're searching
for the original reading
or dr. Allen's assertion that any of the
readings of bez a when they do not have
earlier attestation should be looked at
some of the scams
yeah well all on doesn't like Codex B's
a Parker loves codex PSA but he does
have the suspicion about it but I
believe Parker agrees with me on mark
141 doesn't he I have no idea what he
says well 141 you didn't comment on in
codex busy in his book on it yeah yeah
no it's a great book but I think that he
agrees with me on mark 141 however is it
not true that Scrivener Metzker in the
book you have right there and commenting
on bezzie they all recognize that codex
bez a is incredibly free oh yeah you
know I think so too I think a lot of its
variants in fact are very strange indeed
so shows that how early manuscripts
differ so widely from one another or
this is a case in point so if a codex
bezzie adds all sorts of commentary the
number of steps paul stepped down the
time frame when he lectured at in acts
all these things are added why wouldn't
it be more likely given that there is no
earlier manuscript support for that
reading that the writer of codex d saw
the very same strong language that you
yourself have pointed to in your
argumentation he casts him out he
strongly abrade z-- him and made a
change as he did in so many other places
in in his writings that's that's the
standard argument that's what people
have said for years and I disagree with
it I think that in fact on internal
grounds they're their solid reasons for
saying thinking that it was organized my
principle readings has my principle
reasoning has nothing to do with the
value of codex B's a as you probably
know I mean you've read my articles on
it so I assume you've read my article on
mark 141 I have so that isn't it it's
not codex viiay is to some extent
neither here nor there it provides us
with the reading but it isn't the strong
argument for the reading being original
okay and would that be one of the
readings that you that you feel changes
the entire meaning of a book
well no I I wouldn't put it that way
with that reading I would say that that
reading provides a different nuance
Jesus gets angry a couple of times in
the Gospel of Mark and it's it's
interesting to try and see why he gets
angry in the Gospel of Mark and this
would be another place where he gets
angry at mark I mean it strikes it
struck most surprised is a little bit
odd for him to get angry at this plant
and this leper comes up and wants to be
healed and it says Jesus got angry and
so well that's a little hard to figure
out no wonder they changed it to felt
compassion for the man it makes sense
that they would make the change but in
fact it probably said he got angry and
then the task of the exegete the
interpreter is to try and make sense of
why it is now it says that Jesus got
angry when this leper approached him and
so it changes the meaning of the book to
the extent that it gives you a fuller
understanding of why Jesus gets angry in
the Gospel of Mark by the way he doesn't
get angry in Matthew or Luke when you
repeatedly say that we don't know what
the original writings of the New
Testament said given that there are
entire sections of text where there is
no variation basically at all would you
agree that we know what those sections
of the New Testament said okay let me
let me explain why because I don't think
it's I've explained it very well let's
say Paul wrote his letter to the
Philippians and they got a copy and then
somebody made a copy of that original
and then made a couple mistakes and then
somebody copied that copy made a few
mistakes and then the original was lost
and the first copy was lost and that all
other manuscripts ultimately derived
from that third copy in other words that
third copy was the original wasn't
copied any more the first copy wasn't
copied knowing any more when the second
copy was copied twice and both of those
was copy five times in each of those are
copy 20 times and he said so they all go
back in a genealogical line to the third
copy
rather than to the original all you can
reconstruct is what was in the third
copy and all manuscripts when they agree
95% of the time or whatever number you
want to put on it when they agree 95% of
the time that just shows that they all
go back to that that copy it doesn't
show they go back to the original and so
this kind of perspective I want to make
sure that we're all understanding
exactly what you're saying this is why
you would say that if anything was ever
inspired in essence we'd have to have
the original for it to be inspired now I
look I told you long ago that this was
not going to be a debate about my
doctrine of inspiration I'm not saying
anything has to be one way or the other
God could have inspired the originals
and then decided to allow scribes to
change the originals God could have
inspired all the textual variants I mean
if you're saying if it's impossible then
when you're talking about God nothing is
impossible
the church father Origen maintained that
all of the textual variants were
inspired by God that he inspired the
scribes so well that's you know that's
perfectly fine that's what you want to
think I simply don't think so my view is
that if God wanted us to have his words
he wouldn't have allowed his words to be
changed so that we don't know what the
words were so the standard then that
would have to exist for you to have
maintained the position that you held
would have been either the originals or
some perfect copy thereof why would God
not allow the originals to be preserved
I used to ask myself that question I
mean if you want if he inspired Marc to
write down this book why wouldn't he let
it I mean it wouldn't be impossible for
it to be preserved there are other books
that are preserved that long why
wouldn't why wouldn't he tell Christians
you know keep that book so that you have
a you have something to judge the copies
by but he didn't do that
we don't have the original so it made me
suspect that maybe God had wasn't that
interested in giving us his words if he
was why didn't he give them to
that was my question so clearly that's
not the perspective of the Apostles
themselves who themselves did not have
access to any originals of the Old
Testament and yet they quoted freely
from the Old Testament
based upon even translations of the Old
Testaments long as it was not their view
I'm sorry that is not theirs not their
view right so as you are thinking about
this then I should say though when they
quote the Old Testament it's a very
interesting thing because they quoted in
different forms and in the form they
quoted often is not the form that we
have it Matthew for example quotes the
Old Testament sometimes you give a
quotation of Scripture that you can't
find in the Bible what why is that
because he had a different form than we
have so to apply your standard then how
could there have been any revelation
given without the ability for perfect
copying down the agent I mean perfectly
copied God could have just preserved the
originals so if there is any claimed
scripture from antiquity that does not
have the originals the Quran has textual
variation in it they can't possibly come
from God then I'm not drawing that
theological conclusion and I don't
really appreciate you likening me to to
a Muslim I didn't both in your speech
and just now
I'm not making any stand about the Quran
I don't know anything about the Quran
I'm simply making a very basic point and
I'm not making this as a normative point
for everybody I'm saying for me it
doesn't make sense to say that God
inspired the words because he wanted us
to have his words if he didn't give us
his words we don't have his words
because the originals don't exist and
accurate copies don't exist
there are places where we don't know
what the originals even said so your
standard for accurate copy is perfection
is it not perfection I think if I copy
the word ago and instead of writing a go
I write altos then in fact that is an
imperfect copy a perfect copy would be a
copy that the copy
go as a go
one of my tasks as a as a teacher to a
research university is when I teach my
undergraduate students I try to I try to
teach them to think and I try to force
them to think I try to force them to
think logically I try to get them to
accept points of view not because some
authority has told them these points of
view but because they've seen the power
of the arguments themselves the
arguments are much more important than
the people who make them in my opinion
and so it is with the the what is turned
into the key argument in this this
debate how do we know that we have the
original text among the hundreds of
thousands of variations that are found
in the textual tradition of the New
Testament
quert and Barbara Allen's book indicated
that in fact the original text is always
preserved somewhere among our variants
so we can rest assured that we have the
original but is this a view that makes
logical sense that's the question
scholars have gotten away from thinking
this if you do like Authority then let
me tell you the authorities for the
other side it's virtually every scholar
who is actively pursuing this in the
field except for a few evangelical
scholars now why would this be a
theological point of view isn't this a
historical question why is it that only
people of a certain theological
persuasion would take a certain
historical view do they have some kind
of theological reason for wanting this
to be true if they have a theological
reason fair enough but what is the logic
behind it the situation is the one that
I outlined a minute ago when Paul wrote
his letter to the Philippians he wrote a
letter that was sent through the ancient
equivalent of the ancient mail Paul did
not know he was writing the Bible and
the people who got the book didn't know
they were receiving the Bible it was a
better sent from one Christian authority
to other Christians they read the letter
probably some of them liked it a couple
of them probably didn't like it somebody
decided to copy it
well they copied it and they didn't know
they were copying the Bible they were
just copying a letter and somebody else
copied that copy and somebody else copy
that copy and of course there are
multiple lines of tradition absolutely
I've spent a good part of my career on
this talking about the multiple lines of
tradition that come away from the book
of Philippians and all the other books
various copies are made many of them
differ they all differ from one another
and then those things were copied and
the copies were copied all over the
place the originals were lost the first
copies were lost the copies of the
copies were lost in the copies of the
copies of the copies were lost what
guarantee is it that the entire
tradition goes back to some kind of
original rather than to a copy what's
the argument for that what's the logic
behind that most scholars today simply
don't see that as a tenable point of
view that's why leading scholars in
America England Germany France
everywhere where text criticism is done
that's why the leading scholars in this
field by whom I mean people who go to
the Society of biblical literature and
read papers on the topic and who go to
the International meetings and who are
members of the Society of New Testament
studies the people who do this for a
living that's why there is a very strong
movement away from even talking about
the original text if you think God
inspired the originals why don't you
have the originals and why is it that we
don't know what the originals said in
places the differences in these
manuscripts do matter it does matter
whether the Gospel of John calls Jesus
ha monoghan estas the unique God that's
very different from saying that Jesus is
divine if Jesus is the unique God well
that's a very high statement that you
find nowhere
in the bible well did he say it or not
it depends which manuscripts you read is
the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly
talked about in the Bible it seems to me
that should matter well it depends which
manuscripts you read I know that James
is dealt with these issues in his
writings it doesn't though mean that
they're not important issues when Jesus
is going to his death in the Gospel of
Luke did it become so distressed that he
began to sweat began to sweat drops as
if of blood the words of the passage
that we get the term sweating blood from
it depends which manuscript you read and
it matters a lot for understanding
Luke's Gospel whether Jesus went through
that experience or not did the voice of
Jesus baptism and Luke's Gospels say
that on that day of his baptism baptism
is when God adopted him to be his son
you are my son today I have begotten you
depends which manuscript you read and it
matters a lot I understand the arguments
of people like James and Dan Wallace but
sometimes you know they don't make sense
to me
even though I intellectually understand
them dan Wallace whom he keeps quoting
insists that in fact differences don't
matter in the manuscript well if the
differences don't matter why is it that
he is undertaking a major project
dealing with Greek manuscripts a project
that is going to cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars if the differences
don't matter what does he tell these
people he's trying to raise money from
well we'd like you to donate $50,000 to
our cause because the differences don't
matter of course they matter and if they
don't matter it is shameful to be
spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars on this in a world where people
are starving to death if the differences
don't matter well the differences do
matter in my opinion one issue that has
continually come up
not from me is the issue of preservation
and James has I think fairly asked why
is it that every time I talk about
textual criticism the issue of
preservation comes up and my view of
inspiration comes up the reason it comes
up every time is for the same reason
that came up this time it wasn't an
issue that I raised it was an issue that
James raised and when I had my interview
with Peter Williams on London radio a
few weeks ago is an issue that people
Williams wanted to talk about and when
it was an issue at the debate in New
Orleans with Donna Wallace it was an
issue that Dan Wallace wanted to talk
about this is not an issue that that I
am really all that hot and bothered
about I simply talked about it at the
beginning in the end of my book because
it's the issue that at one time made me
interested in knowing do we have the
original text I wanted to know that
because I was a bible-believing
evangelical Christian who believed that
God had given us the words of the text
and I became bothered by the fact that
it appeared we didn't have them and so
that's what got me interested it's what
made it interesting to me at the time
well I think it's an issue that
continues to be interesting I raise it
though simply as an issue I'm interested
in not in something I'm that interested
in debating about you can have your own
view of inspiration and I'm happy to
tell you mine my view is that if God
wanted you to have his words he would
have given you his words he didn't give
you his words because his words and
places are not preserved so why do you
think he inspired the words in the first
place that's my point of view James
wants to talk about this as some kind of
hard core standard that I have to apply
across the board with respect to for
example the Quran I don't know anything
about the Quran I don't know very much
at all about Islam I'm not connected
with Muslim apologists that he's in
contact with I do know that they use my
work and I'm sorry that if people don't
appreciate the fact that they they use
my work but it's not really my fault I
have
given my work to anybody I've simply
write the books and let people read the
books the books in fact make very
different points from points about
inspiration the books make points about
what whether we have the original text
of the New Testament our topic of debate
was does the Bible or did the Bible
misquote Jesus and the answer is yes
remember that for most of history the
Bible was not the printed edition that
you read today for most Christians
throughout history the Bible was
whatever manuscript happened to be
available to them what manuscript was
available to the Christians and their
churches all of these manuscripts have
mistakes in them including mistakes in
the words of Jesus all Bibles misquote
Jesus thank you
first of all let me thank you all very
much for being here this evening I would
like to thank those who have made it
possible for us to have this encounter
Michael found of course is primarily
responsible for bringing this together
but there have been many others rich
Pierce back in Phoenix some of you who
are here Alan Kirchner down here someone
who's not with us this evening
Rosie Moss Corelli has been very helpful
to me in preparation for this debate
many have made it possible for us to be
here and I hope you have found it to be
a scintillating discussion I believe
that people will be amazed at comparing
what I specifically and clearly said and
what dr. Ehrman has represented me as
saying especially on specific issues
this evening that's why I hope people
will go back and they will listen again
and again and again and check the facts
for themselves we were just told that
scholars getting away from this yes
post-modernism is creeping in I think it
is a tragedy there are many who have
spoken out against it but I would like
to point out to you I'm not one of those
people that believes in authorities if
you're in Germany back in the 1800s you
would have believed on a base of
authority that John was a second-century
document written toward the end of
second century around 170 if you had
believed even what dr. Ehrman believes
about the dating of John back then they
would have laughed at you as being out
of step with modern scholarship then
this little manuscript p-52 comes along
and all of a sudden we have a bit of a
problem dr. Ehrman says well you know
some evangelicals way about their
theological reasons I would like to
submit to you everybody has their
theological reasons even those who call
themselves happy agnostics still have a
theological set of presuppositions where
they know those presuppositions are
there or not
what is the logic of believing we have
the New Testament it's the logic that
Tischendorf and many others have
accepted all along that is if there was
that major corruption in that earlier
period why do we have only one New
Testament text coming out are there
variants yes but is it still the same
text is it still Philippians it's still
Galatians is it still the presentation
of the same theology yes it is no one
questions that in fact in the paperback
edition of Doctor
Germans book he says the position I
argue for in misquoting Jesus does not
actually stand at odds with professor
Metzger's position that the essential
Christian beliefs are not affected by
textual variants in the manuscript
tradition in the New Testament what he
means by that I think is that even if
one or two passages that are used to
argue for a belief have a different
textual reading there are still other
passages that could be used to argue for
the same belief for the most part I
think that's true and so we need to
understand that when dr. Ehrman talks
about changes scribes changing things we
don't know what the original text was
the standard that is being used is not
the standard that has been used down to
the centuries because to adopt that
standard means that we have to become
ultra skeptical about everything that
happened before at least the printing
press and even then I would argue into
the modern era I don't think that there
is any logic in that I don't think
there's any logic and looking at
manuscript tradition saying yeah this
this extremely unified manuscript
tradition going back closer than
anything else we've had clearly
demonstrates that we don't have any idea
what it originally said that is not what
the vast majority of people have come to
and whether post-modernism takes us
there or not I don't know
I never compared dr. Airmen to a Muslim
anyone who goes back and listens from
know that all I was saying is this it is
a documented fact that there are textual
variants in the manuscripts of the Quran
therefore logically if you apply dr.
Ehrman standards he would have to be
able to write a book called misquoting
Muhammad that's all I'm saying
that would be true of everyone in the
ancient world so why does misquoting
Jesus end up on the New York Times
bestseller list I think it's because we
live in an age where many people are
looking for a reason not to believe that
is why a few weeks ago I debated doctors
l-fiqar Ali Shah an Islamic scholar and
apologist at Duke University the subject
was a comparison of the Bible and the
Quran two of the four books on dr. Shahs
desk were by Bart Ehrman at one point
dr. Shah informed us that all we had for
the New Testament were
use of copies of copies I had to smile
if you listen to men like Richard
Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens you will
often hear dr. Ehrman's name cited as
the final authority in the scholarly
demonstration of the corruption in utter
unreliability of the New Testament I
don't think either man really has a clue
what Bart is actually talking about but
that does not stop them from invoking
his authority a few years ago my
daughter ran into an anti Christian
zealot teaching in the Phoenix area Lee
Carter who in the midst of giving the
highly scholarly advice to Google the
authorship of the Gospels invoked dr.
Ehrman's name as part of his
anti-christian diatribe as well I do not
believe dr. Carter has any meaningful
understanding of the field of textual
criticism but he is representative of
many in academia today who are more than
happy to blast the New Testament and
smugly proclaimed 18-year olds that
scholars have proven it to be an
unreliable document Bart Ehrman cannot
control the use of his words as far as
any of these have misused his comments
the responsibility lies with them but
the fact is that dr. Ehrman has had many
opportunities to correct these
misapprehensions and strangely he
doesn't I have listened to NPR
interviews where the interviewer is
going on and on and on and instead of
correcting their many misapprehensions
dr. Ehrman allows them to go on
unchallenged the fact the matter is if
you're going to tell people repeatedly
that we don't know what the New
Testament originally said but at the
same time you admit that the manuscript
tradition of the New Testament is
earlier fuller and better than any other
relevant ancient document then you need
to be fair and honest and balanced and
at least inform your listeners the
majority of those who have studied this
field believe the original readings do
continue to exist at least up until
post-modernism in the manuscript
tradition to our day even in the
relatively small number of viable
meaningful variants to do otherwise is
to use bearer sensationalism and such as
unworthy of this important topic at the
same time there is a vital need for
education amongst believing Christians
about the history and transmission of
the text of the Bible I have been
beating this drum since the mid 1980s so
I can at least honestly claim
consistency here the Christian ignorant
the history of his sacred texts is a
Christian who will be shocked at the
mere presentation of historical facts
and who will then easily follow false
lines of reasoning to faithless
conclusions the history of the Bible
including a serious dose of Basic
textual critical principles should be
part and parcel of our most basic
instruction for those new in the faith
this is especially true in regards to
our young people we send them off to the
University with almost no foundation
upon which to stand and well then they
end up in bard Airmen's new testament
reduction class they need to hear about
John 7 53 through 811 the woman taken in
adultery and the longer ending of mark
in the community of faith first a
Christian with a sound balanced
understanding of how ancient documents
were transmitted and how God preserved
the text by having explode around the
Mediterranean so that no one could ever
control its text and alter its message
will not be moved by the observation
that the pericope adultery is not
original the weapons used against the
faith in this instance are provided by
ourselves when we refuse to educate our
own people on these matters as I said in
my opening this evening you have heard
from two men who upon studying the same
materials have come to polar opposite
conclusions one has seen in the lack of
the original copies of the Scriptures
together with his difficulties with the
problem of evil and end of faith the
other has found in those same materials
the plain evidence of God's providence
and concern for his people and the words
contained in the scripture is a
compelling satisfying soul anchoring
assurance of his purposes in creation
including the existence of evil and of
redemption in Christ it is truly my hope
this evening that you have been able to
see that there is a consistent sound
compelling answer to be offered to the
skepticism of Bart Ehrman and that this
evenings encounter will spur the
Christian on to deeper study of the
great heritage of faith found in the
Christian scriptures and if you come
this evening sceptical about the
reliability of the New Testament I trust
that you will dig deeper and ask
yourself if you are really able to
embrace the kind of radical skepticism
that would require you to abandon any
reasonable certainty of history itself
to an unreasonable and unworkable
standard of knowledge the bible does not
misquote Jesus textual variants are not
miss quotations instead we have seen
that the Bible gives us every reason to
believe we know what the Apostles taught
what Jesus proclaimed and as a result
each of us by God's grace has access to
his life-giving gospel thank you for
your time and for your hearing
hi I'm David Wheaton from Minneapolis
and I just want to thank both of you for
coming and doing the bait the debate was
very stimulating and so thank you for
that my questions for dr. airman you
talked a lot about not having the
originals tonight you met that was
really the crux tie think of your
argument tonight and you said we can
only be sure let's say if we're going
back to let's say the third copy past
the original so we have an original and
then a copy of that and then maybe to
the third the third level how do you
know aren't you making a big assumption
that there were mistakes from the
original to that third copy how do you
know that there were mistakes made
between that original and the third copy
that it goes back to the genesis of yes
thank you it's a it's an excellent
question and of course we don't actually
know anything when it comes to this sort
of thing which may sound like total
skepticism but I'm sorry we don't know
how would we know so what we have to do
is extrapolate on the basis what we do
know and what we do know is that as time
if you go back earlier in the tradition
so the earlier the manuscript the more
of the mistakes the manuscript tradition
is filled with more mistakes early and
the reason is because the people copying
the text weren't professionals and that
was even more the case for the third
copy than it was for the 33rd copy so
that it's actually the situation is
actually much bleaker than I painted it
scholars for over 80 years now have been
convinced that all appalls letters that
we have actually are copies of a
collection of Paul's letters that were
made around the Year 100 in other words
the they're all copies from about 40
years after the original so they weren't
the third copy was much much later
hey join very briefly I think the thing
that must be kept in mind is that these
manuscripts did not exist in some vacuum
they exist within the fellowship of
faith Paul's still around
there are people who knew Paul they're
still around there were those who knew
his preaching that we're still around I
think there's a real danger in isolating
the manuscripts from the historical
context and the continued existence of
the church just as with the Gospels and
the fact that as Richard Malcolm's talk
about the eyewitnesses that continue to
the church
a long period of time very important as
well thank you and your question is for
dr. Ehrman my name is Robert Melanie my
question is to you the Old Testament
went through the same process that you
said that the New Testament went to -
right exactly that the copy of copy of
copyright and then when they dug up the
Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 and the Book of
Isaiah that's in this Bible was
translated and it was 98 percent perfect
word-for-word only two variances in
prepositional variances how can the New
Testament be different than that well
yeah that's really Isaiah was a very the
Isaiah scroll they found was very
similar to the Isaiah the Masoretic text
from the Year 1000 you know the the copy
they found at the Dead Sea Scrolls of
Jeremiah was 15 percent shorter than the
Jeremiah we have 15 percent shorter so
there were a lot of changes being made
by Jewish scribes and what that shows us
in fact is the Jewish scribes in the
Middle Ages were quite meticulous with
their copying would that the Christian
scribes were if you compare to Christian
copies from the same time period say a
thousand years separate so you take a
third century copy of the New Testament
with a 13th century copy of the New
Testament you don't have anything like
that amount of agreement there are
massive differences a couple of things
the Old Testament transmission is not
like the New Testament transmission it's
much more control because it was within
just the people of Israel one of the
problems here is that the reason you had
non-professionals copying these things
is because they wanted the gospel to get
out to as many as possible that's why
non professionals are doing it the idea
of comparing that to the Masri something
like that just simply doesn't follow
because it's completely different
historical context that we're talking
about mr. Finley's thank you gentlemen
both my question is also for dr. Airmen
I'm really starting to feel unloved here
yeah sorry you mentioned at least twice
in a debate that if God why
us to know his word he would have
preserved it you as an agnostic how do
you know that that is what God would
have done given that is what he wanted
yes great question and let me reiterate
I'm simply stating here a personal
opinion I'm not stating something that I
have any any scholar done any
scholarship on it's not what I've done
research on I'm just telling you my
personal opinion which is why it's not
what I wanted this debate to be about
because it's just my own opinion and so
I you know you can have a different view
it's just I'm just telling you what
makes sense to me which you know I've
said it about it's probably more than
twice I think said about twenty times
but maybe you know I've got twenty
seconds so I'll say it again I mean it
seems to me that if God wanted us to
have his words that he would have given
us his words if he wanted to why
wouldn't he and it wouldn't have been
impossible to do he could have made sure
the originals were preserved he could
have made sure that they were copied
accurately there'd be no more of a
miracle than inspiring them and so the
fact that he didn't preserve them to me
indicates that he probably didn't give
them in the first place it's obviously
something that there's a big
disagreement on obviously you've heard
my response to that God did preserve his
words it's the how that differs the idea
of having to have the originals is
simply nothing I don't think anyone in
the early church even could have even
begun to conceive of such a standard
that dr. Airmen uses now but I would
just like to point out that I would like
dr. Ehrman to add to his book a
disclaimer this conclusion which
atheists and Muslims and everybody else
thinks is the conclusion of my
scholarship is just my personal opinion
it's not actually scholarship I think I
think in my book you'll see that in fact
I don't state as a result of scholarship
in your question is for dr. Ehrman of
course as everybody else no actually I
do want to say this on the part of dr.
Airmen I have read your books and I am a
Christian and it actually has
strengthened my faith I know dr. white
was talking about people quickly take
your works and and use it to promote
atheism Islam and so forth but the thing
is is that okay okay Tom about double
standards somebody would try to espouse
the Jesus myth you that Jesus never
existed
you are an authority in the historical
Jesus here's here's my question with the
knowledge we have with the Gospels how
much can be deduced regarding how much
we know about Jesus yeah that's a very
good question and I think that
historians can only establish levels of
probability you know what is really
almost certain you what is what is less
certain but highly probable what's
fairly probable what's kind of probable
what's possible as a what's unlikely I
mean you have a level that's what
historians do they love social levels of
probability and I think with some things
with historical Jesus you can establish
very high levels of probability I mean
it's it's virtually certain that Jesus
existed that he was a Jew lived in in
Palestine who was crucified under
Pontius Pilate I mean all those are very
high levels of probability so there have
been people who've wanted to argue that
I that I think that Jesus never existed
which is quite remarkable since I wrote
a book saying what I think you can say
Jesus said and did let's hope so I think
but it's all based on levels of
probability so well one thing I find
interesting I played on my webcast dr.
Herman's encounter with the infidel guy
because the first time I ever heard dr.
him and dialoguing was someone who was
more radical than he was in skepticism
on those issues and it was fascinating
to listen to that dialogue dr. Herman
earlier said I'm not all that hot and
bothered about the subject of the
preservation of the text and yet even in
the dialogue with Reggie Finley the the
infidel guy still raised the issue and
presented it to him in that context
that's why I think we we've been
discussing it this evening your question
is for dr. white Hey I'm so excited
Thank You great debate I've enjoyed it
very much thank you gentlemen my
question concerns John 8 passage and as
dr. Aaron even mentioned that it's a
powerful story it is rich in biblical
wisdom and my question is is there a
defense that can be made of that passage
as authentic in the event in the life of
Jesus since it since its wisdom does
have a biblical flavor to it and it
there can be made a defense what would
that be well I'm sure that someone
certainly Byzantine priority people
would would raise a defense but it would
be a fundamental defense the Byzantine
manuscript tradition the reality is not
only do the earliest manuscripts not
contain it the first to contain is
cosette codex Bezeq Canterbury Genesis
but the thing that to me is the clearest
evidence that it's not original is that
it sort of wanders around in the text in
other words in like the 4-hour group
it's in Luke once in Luke 21 when it's
Luke 24 and so when you have a story
that appears in two different Gospels
and and moves around like that then
clearly it's it's not an original part
of the text itself and so I would think
that there are many who would say that
it has a Dominical flavor that is it
maybe it goes back to the Lord but
others would point out it actually
syntactically and linguistically is much
more Lucan than it is
johani as well so I don't know what kind
of argument be made outside of simply
defending the Byzantine manuscript
tradition as a whole I will respond by
saying this this is a moment I want
everybody to take note of
I completely agree but we're not going
to be hugging ok last two questions for
the evening thank you both for the
debate it was incredibly inspiring to
see your scholarship this is for dr.
Ehrman would you consider yourself to be
a good person person wait a second
that's the wrong question now I have a
question for you considering what you
made the statement on your first or
Buttle you asked and almost kind of
pleaded that we would keep an open mind
that we would listen to you and have an
open mind and I'm checking your personal
consistency of your convictions or do
you have an open mind to the possibility
that you might be wrong absolutely I you
know I had a friend in seminary who used
to say I believe in my right to convert
and to be converted and that's that's my
view
the thing is on this particular topic I
mean we've talked about a lot of topics
tonight and most of these topics are
things that I've thought about for 30
years and on a number of these issues in
fact I've had an open mind and I've
changed my mind
and so I'm completely open to be
persuaded by argument absolutely I mean
for example just one example this might
seem minor to you all but I mean it's
fairly major I think we would agree is
that I have become less and less
convinced that we can talk about the
original text when I wrote the Orthodox
corruption of Scripture in 1993 I
thought basically you talk about the
original tech and over the years I've
started to change my mind about that
because I think that the evidence
suggests otherwise if somebody comes up
with a powerful argument that we can
talk about it I'm absolutely open to it
that was sort of a personal question to
dr. Ehrman so I'm going to do something
personal here myself I actually brought
something for dr. Ehrman and I decided
to do this almost a year ago it's
probably the single most worthless thing
that you could ever give to Bart Ehrman
and once I tell you why what it is it's
the necktie that I'm wearing sorry about
that
and dr. Ehrman it is p50 to both sides
Faline thank you
probably a Monty Python fan as well so
anyway
okay a last question of the evening
hello I wanted to thank you both for the
lively debate I I believe from a
theological perspective that the Bible
is addressed it Oh dr. white actually
one ask you a question I believe from a
theological perspective that the Bible
in its original forms is the inerrant
Word of God and if we for the sake of
argument ignore inspiration because
we've already covered that can what do
you do you believe the Bible as we have
it now is inerrant or or the originals
or what is your perspective on just
inerrancy if we just neglect the
inspiration portion of it yeah I I would
hold to the Chicago statement a biblical
inerrancy which makes a very clear
distinction between the original and
copies thereof I do believe the tenacity
the text and so therefore I do believe
as we've put it that it's like having a
jigsaw puzzle we've got one thousand and
ten pieces instead of one thousand it's
not a matter of having lost anything
and so yes obviously as as Pete Williams
like to put it in the radio program they
did a few weeks ago Bart tends to see
the glass is half-empty in others tend
to see it is half-full and I really do
believe that when a person begins to dig
into these issues that you discover that
there is really no question about what
the New Testament teaches about the role
of Jesus and things like that that these
textual variants especially things like
the Kombi ohon 'i'm doctoring kept
saying they're saying they're not
important I've never said they're not
important I've said they do not alter
the message and that we should study
them but that we can know what the New
Testament originally taught yeah so you
know when I started out in this study I
was a firm believer in the inerrancy of
the original text that I thought it had
been copied and made changes by human
hands and I that view of inerrancy
started crumbling as soon as I started
saying that in fact talking about the
inerrant originals doesn't make sense
if you don't have originals so I think
that was the first step away for me from
the view of inerrancy okay thank you
would you please thank them again folks
and thank you for coming out tonight
it's a great demonstration that you care
about such matters and that certainly is
a start