Ehrman Baby in Flour Introduction to the New Testament

A Review of the Ehrman Debate

/*

In late 2007 we arranged the argue with Dr. Ehrman for January 21, 2009. The eastward-mails plainly included the issue of textual variation and inspiration, as nosotros advertised the debate with that title for almost a year beforehand. We learned later on that Dr. Ehrman does not read e-mails very closely or carefully, for simply a month before the fence he informed u.s. that his conclusions regarding inspiration "are not debatable,"despite appearing in the introduction of his volume, the conclusion of his book, and in well-nigh every public talk he has given on the subject for the past three years. He insisted that we could only debate "Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?"Our phone conversation was significantly less than cordial at that time, with Dr. Ehrman derisively laughing, for case, when I mentioned the concept of Scripture equally "theopneustos,"the term Paul uses at 2 Timothy iii:xvi. He interrupted me in mid-sentence with laughter. "Oh come on! Theopneustos appears a single fourth dimension in the New Attestation, in Paul. It doesn't appear in Matthew. Information technology isn't in Mark, or Luke."I truly had to bite my lip to keep the debate on track at that time, but I did then for the reason that his books are used as texts in many colleges and universities across the Usa, and so I had to keep my eye on the "large picture"and the usefulness of the debate in the years to come.

So as I went into the debate on the 21st I had the following goals:

1. Demonstrate that one who holds to the highest view of Scripture and its inspiration can look at the very same data and still present a stiff, compelling case for the preservation of the text of Scripture over time.
2. Expose the presuppositional nature of Ehrman's insistence that nosotros must possess the originals for inspiration to be true. This would include making sure it is clear that when Ehrman says "We don't know what the NT said"he ways "We do not have photographic reproductions of the originals."I desired to make certain the listener would meet that the NT manuscript tradition is more than sufficient to provide the original readings, even in the toughest of variants.
3. Reverse Ehrman's "spin"on the country of the text, which involved putting a context to his abiding repetition of the merits, "At that place are more variants than in that location are words in the New Testament."
4. Present a strong example for the providential preservation of the text through the explosion of early manuscripts and the lack of editorial "command"in contrast with the Islamic theory of preservation. Given that the bulk of attacks upon the NT today come up from those alleging some kind of controlled editing of the text, this chemical element is vital.
5. Finally, betrayal the radical skepticism of Bart Ehrman's position, which leads to an abandonment of any meaningful noesis of history itself. I needed to contrast Ehrman'due south mail service-modernism with the viewpoints of the past, including contrasting his position with the swell names in the field of the past like Tischendorf or Aland.

And then how did the debate go in light of these goals? Quite well, in fact. Surely, for those looking for blood and guts such an run into could not mayhap satisfy. The topic was too wide, the subject matter too challenging, for there to be much hazard of any "gotcha"moments or "clear victors."But each of the above goals was achieved and that with great clarity. Specifically:

1. Dr. Ehrman did not even attempt to mount a case against my presentation, preferring to rely upon arguments from potency ("Well, nobody actually believes that anymore!") rather than providing counter-examples.
2. Ehrman was clearer than I have e'er heard him in repeating his mantra that without the originals, there can exist no inspiration. When challenged, all the same, he kept repeating himself. He did not show any power to go deeper into the nature of his position, and did non seem willing to examine the presuppositions behind his statements.
3. It was non difficult at all to present portions of the mountain of testify that demonstrates the unity and accuracy of the NT manuscript tradition. Nevertheless, Dr. Ehrman seems to exist then insulated from any word of the similarities of the manuscripts (and so averse to taking the fourth dimension to study what his opponent has written on the subject field so as to have some groundwork upon which to work) that he seemed completely lost by the give-and-take of how much alike even the near divergent manuscripts are. This led to some wasted time, especially during the cross test, for I had to try to explain my presentation to him. I have oftentimes commented on the fact that liberals such every bit Ehrman (Spong, Lynn, and others I have debated) exercise not believe it is relevant to prepare for debates by familiarizing yourself with the views of your opponent.
4. I succeeded in making the case against whatsoever kind of edited command of the text and in demonstrating that this is a far more serious allegation than Ehrman'southward "nosotros demand the original"argument. Ironically, Ehrman fifty-fifty accused me of likening him to a Muslim at 1 point, though I did no such matter. I simply demonstrated that the demand he makes of a variantless manuscript tradition partakes far more of the Islamic view of Scripture than the Christian 1. He had no meaningful response to this, other than to confess that he, as the head of the department of religious studies at a major university, knows "little"of Islam, and near "naught"well-nigh the Qur'an.
5. I do not believe Bart Ehrman has ever been quite so forthright publicly in his disagreement with the smashing scholars of the by, in his promotion of an abandonment of the establishment of the "original"text, his rejection of the tenacity of the text (though he provided non a single rebuttal to the documentation of tenacity provided by Kurt Aland) and in essence the open proclamation that nosotros do not, in fact, "know"what anyone in the by actually said or did. When a scholar similar Ehrman has to accept his theories to such an extent but to avert the authority of the New Testament, that speaks volumes.

I also believe the debate produced a number of other statements that will be most useful in the future. Ehrman's clear affirmation that the New Testament has the earliest and best attestation of any ancient document should be made into t-shirts to be given to all freshmen college students.

So when Joel McDurmon posted his review I was left a little confused every bit to how he came to the conclusions he did. I would imagine part of the trouble is that Joel is not overly familiar with the chief elements of my work that would give him some of import groundwork upon which to piece of work in forming his review. Those who have read Scripture Alone , The Male monarch James Only Controversy , and have listened to my debate with John Dominic Crossan on the historical reliability of the Gospels, would be in a ameliorate position to follow the line of idea.

In my adjacent posting I will address the exclamation that this debate "proved little abreast the limitations of evidentialist apologetics,"an ironic claim, since I am not an evidentialist, and the topic of the fence was determined by Ehrman's published claims. Information technology was not a argue on the existence of God or fifty-fifty the theological possibility of divine revelation. Further, I will answer fully to the implication of Mr. McDurmon's words that I somehow claimed, or believe, that "manuscript evidence forms the ground of our trust in the veracity of Scripture"outside of the work of the Spirit in bringing 1 to confidence of the truth of God'due south Word.

James White

Contempo Posts

piazzaheact1941.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/textual-issues/a-review-of-the-ehrman-debate/

Share this post