Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P2 

It would be nice if RU-vid comments had a filter option to filter out comments that use words such as "schooled," "slaughtered," "destroyed," "annihilated," etc. in debate videos so we could eliminate a lot of the immature comments.

I don’t think Dr. Ehrman expected this much of a challenge. Both are very scholarly in their debate and it’s much appreciated this day and age. Well done, gentlemen!

I love the experts in the comment sections of these videos

Best moment in the debate: James giving Bart the P52 tie. Bart seems genuinely thrilled by it!

They dont like each other .Thats clear.

Amazing debate they we’re both going at it. Two intellectual scholars both very educated and knowledgeable going back and forth great debate

great debate, love listening to all of these.

Damn, this "back and forth" bethween this two is so technical that I have no idea what in the world all this distinctions make reference to! Thanks for the video though.

I want to see a round 2!

Great debate and I've learned tremendously from both Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.James White.

One of the greatest debates ever in tone, professionalism, scholarship, and argument. Excellent job on both sides!

This debate was instructive. Dr. White knew that he was up against a formidable opponent for textual criticism.

Did anyone notice how during the cross-examintation Bart Ehrman kept interrupting James White while he was answering Ehrman's questions? James White on the other hand kept his cool and allowed Ehrman to answer his questions without interrupting in between. That is how you do an honest debate. If you keep interrupting your opponent while it is his chance to speak, it only shows that you are scared of something.

I don't even know if White is making good points during Ehrman's examination because Ehrman consistently fails to actually address the point being made.

Well this was quite spicey lol. Good to listen to such a lively and challenging debate.

My inner-nerd is so happy. Enjoyed the debate....and the discussion. The story of the Bible is fascinating.

Perhaps I am slightly biased as a theist (everyone is slightly biased), but I think that James White won this particular debate. I think that Bart was actually had a stronger showing against William Lane Craig than he did against James White.

So many big words and my so little knowledge in this area make this really hard to follow along lol. Regardless it’s probably one of the best debates I’ve heard along with the part 1 video of this debate. They actually speak to each other’s points and questions to attempt to answer specific points. I do think a lot of their opening statements have strong assertions that when questioned in the cross examined portion, they were not prepared to answer with specific detail. Example when Bert asked about the 12 documents or whatever it was and White could only give about 2-3 examples out of said 12 in that very moment.

I love this stuff!

Well. I have watched both parts of this debate and found them to be very informative. It is indeed true to say that we, each one of us, have a wide range theological persuasions which govern how we see/ perceive things. How else can (specifically, these) two scholars come to two such differing opinions? I personally come down on the side of White. I thought his arguments were sound and logical. Though there are many variants in the manuscripts, the essence of the gospel HAS been preserved. Essentially, a person in these days can come to know the truth of the gospel that salvation is found in Jesus through the words we have within the Bible. Reading the comments below, I can see that I am in a minority with this view. Thanks for the presentation.

excellent debate! thanks for posting!

Bart started off nice and respectful and seemed to grow very irritable and condescending

Who were the New Testament scholars name's that ehrman was referring to when debating white on the original source?

I'm 3 minutes into the debate and my phone paused and I can't help but conclude this is the kind of debate people wanna see. A mix of subtle tension with a hence of animosity from 2 highly informative men. It would be a complete dis-justice to myself to not completely remain open minded to both sides. I will biasedly comment on my own comment on the official winner of the debate!

Bart Ehrman sounds like a senator questioning someone in a Senate hearing

Top class talk!

Where you got those numbers!

I'm a college math professor giving a lecture to a couple dozen people. They are all taking notes. Some people are writing a lot, some people are writing a little less. Some leave out certain parts, others add in those parts. I ask to see their notes if they want extra credit for class by the end of the semester. I expect to see accuracy and good clarification on what I have been lecturing. I see what they have written and even though their words differ from what I originally said and there are some things that were and were not included by some, they ALL have the same basic meaning of what I was teaching in the subject of math. They all get an A and 30 extra credit points. Is what I was teaching inaccurate and not reliable just because the students differed on what to include in their notes? In high school, I studied with my peers using each other's notes and even though the notes all had different word structures in them, the basic idea was still there resulting in me getting an A+

Thank you so much for uploading this. This is great stuff. I could listen to Dr Erhman all the time.

White scored huge points by bringing up the fact that Jesus quoted the Greek Septuagint. Ehrman's expectations of inspiration is just not realistic among any scholars.

Nice debate!

It is interesting to see what happens when you get someone off script. That is why the question portion of debates are my favorite. I would prefer to see this format for the entire debate. I think James white did a good job of presenting his case outside of the Q&A session. Many Christians are practiced speakers and I found his speeches to be intelligent and well thought out. In the end I side with Ehrman as he was looking to see what the text actually said and not what people needed it to mean.

I would have to totally agree that Bart Ehrman went from being respectful and I think very scholarly in the way he was approaching the debate that he became more personal adgitated and disrespectful in even the way that he was questioning dr. white in the sense in you can see for yourself that while dr. White was trying to answer the question Bart would immediately cut him off that's called steamrolling where you continually ask questions that nobody can answer that quickly in its assumed that you might be right because they can answer them quickly that's very juvenile

I am Muslim, I would love DR. Bart to study, research and be critical early Islam,Quran and Hadith and the life of prophet Mohammad , you would enrich our Islam life.

I'm a bit floored at how frequently Dr. Ehrman interrupted Dr. White. I also found it interesting that Dr. Ehrman had a defensive posture throughout this. He states that he's not hot and bothered at one point, but his body language and tone of voice say otherwise. He must have been really crushed when he decided that Biblical variation was enough to invalidate the faith he grew up with (or so it seems, given the amount of bitterness and anger he displayed throughout).

great debate

If you claim the miracle of divine inspiration, that sets a higher standard of evidence. Apart from the grammatical mistakes, if the story of the woman taken in adultery can be fabricated, then what else did the writers lie about in the earliest manuscripts we don't have?

Whenever I've had informal debates on this subject with doubters, I always give them one simple challenge -- can you name me a set of NT manuscripts that would lead me to a different faith? So far none of the people who attack the credibility of scripture can answer that. That's because there is none.

I have been a qualified fan of both these men in the past. James has a more multi-discipline expertise that is honed in battles of apologetics and debate. Bart is a surprisingly good debater and demonstrates to all his superior knowledge and experience in textual criticism. When he crosses into biblical interpretation and theology he does not demonstrate the same methodical expertise. More assertions without the same academic grounding. I have learned something significant and that concerns the earliest period of 50-75 years after writing. We have no idea what, how many, or what significance were the accidental/intentional changes that took place. Both debaters presented hypothesis on what occurred. Bart seems to be that we cannot know the words of Jesus. Seems to be a all or nothing viewpoint. No certainty verses total certainty of ever word.

Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for your excellent work. All of your books, debates and interviews have been fascinating, educational and illuminating!

really enjoyed this debate. one of my favorites. I'm a Christian and believe what we have is God's word. variants haven't changed the gospel message. Christ lived and dies rose again 3 days later. he did so that for those who would believe would have eternal life. variants have not changed that message. I understand where dr erhman is coming from. but he said it's his own opinion and not scholarly. great debate non the less.

In my opinion, where Bart really is at his best is in the direct questioning phase. That's where he really shows off his scholarship and starts to outclass opponents. I felt like that happened here as well.

Awesome debate one of my top..

This part of the debate just show how close minded and harsh is Mr Ehrman, he is just interested of his question and disregarded the answer of James White

Great Debate & a very well educated scholar by Bart Ehman who studied Christian religion for almost over three decades & believed in it as his religion for years then he found out there is completely clear contradictions in it & he has the right to question the mistakes that are in the Bible. This guy Bart Ehmarn he is sharply educating people the truth & reasoning the Christian scholars in a very reasonable and most effective way of debating the Christian scholars.

Dr. James clearly cane in well prepared and more knowledgable than Dr. Bart.

I wonder what Bart thinks about the Turin Shroud?

It is 2 years already but I need to correct for the sake of mankind. See this summary, you will know the whole thing. "As the result, any book that considered “late date” or non-authorize by apostle(s) would reject from canon. For example; Epistle of Barnabas (90 - 130 A.D) and Apocalypse of Peter (about 125 - 150 A.D) were rejected from canon. Many or all of these rejected books were lost and some of them were rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries." Thus, if the book of Mark is that bad, why didn't they picked, for instance, Barnabas.

Well that's the point though isn't it, if your expected to base your eternal salvation on what a book says, shouldn't that book be reliable? Shouldn't its authorship be verifiable? People murder, martyr, and go to war over what this book says. I'd venture that thousands, if not millions of people have been tortured or lost their lives because of this book. Unlike other scholarly works, the accuracy of the new testament can mean life or death or even an eternity of damnation. For these reasons, I think it needs to be held to a higher standard than any other piece of historical record. And Ehrman's findings perfectly articulate why I value my soul and the souls/lives of others over this blatantly unreliable "record".

Dr. James R. White & Dr. Bart D. Ehrman are very smart!

Worth every minute of my time. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Both men were respectful of each other. I thought it was awesome that Dr. White gave Dr. Ehrman a gift. In my opinion, I think Dr Ehrman under estimated his opponent by not reading his material or carefully listening to what he said. Which made him waste valuable time in his cross examination. I think Dr. White was definitely the under dog in this debate but seemed to have done his homework and was prepared. In my opinion I think because Dr. Ehrman underestimated Dr. White and didn’t have a counter attack ready he lost the debate. I think if he did his homework and had a rematch it would be very interesting.

bart ehrman is really a genius. i have followed most of his debate and he is always on point. these are the question i have been asking but still i have no answer to them. thank you ehrman

It looks like bart ehrman is jumping while he is talking :) good discussion btw!

>The arguments are more important than the people making them >How come only people of this theological persuasion make this argument? Pick one

I have seen many of Barts debates and I have never seen him get so snippy he seems pretty irritated

Regarding Ehrman's issue with divine inspiration of the Bible, couldn't it be resolved by saying that the original version given to man WAS inspired by God but we screwed it up by not preserving it?

I'm a theist and a big fan of James White. I also love Bart Ehrman and what he has to say. I don't think there was a clear winner. Good points were made on both sides. When someone says 'so and so got crushed' it normally says more about them than it does either debater.

Bart erhmans position is based on a premise made purely out of assumption of what God would want. That assumption is that God wants a pure and perfect transmission of manuscripts. And from this he has created his critique. Bob erhman thinks he personally knows what God would want and because he doesn’t know why God wouldn’t want, or allowed it, he comes to the conclusion that it is not Gods word. His perspective is based purely on assumption.

How would you know if the original is the original?

1:11:56 RiP to the girls question.

Ehrman's entertainment value is supported by his focus on historicity and seemingly exhaustive biblical knowledge and technical incisiveness in the academic discipline.

It's clear that dr. White treats debates as formal events while Bart refers to treat them as friendly casual conversations. I think Bart took White's approach as aggressive and personal and so he got mad and then was rude to White

I think that there is an assumption that scribal transmission is the only way that the gospels were recorded. Variants could come about by disciples teachings being recorded by followers to the best of their recollection, from many mouths and many hands could come many words and phrases, misspoken, and recorded incorrectly.

When I listened to Bert's illustration of transmission, he describe a scenario of a person copied a NT book and then that copy was copied with an error and as soon as the original and first copy are gone then the only copy that is transmitted is from the errored copy which leads to what we have today is not the word of God because God words cannot have errors. However, what if for example that the letter to Colossians was copied more then once from the original. Let's say 10 times and that all those copies were accurately. Then you would have to ask of these 10 how many copies would be copied from each of these with errors and without errors. Does Bert allow for this possibility? Plus can Bert prove his illustration of transmission? It would seem that the manuscript transmission tradition seems to be the reliable foundation to stand on to believe we have what the originals had in them.

In this section Ehrman destroyed White who could not answer a single question properly and admitted there were many variations in th early manuscripts

Do not try to convince Bart. He has in his mind the text has been changed. He wanted the original text, without it he won't change his mind.

39:04 Wrong claim, The Quran hasn`t textual variations even though there are too many ways to write the same word in Arabic, that is why they start using diacritical marks "Tashkeel or Harakat", There are different ways of recitation but all they lead to the same meaning.

After listening to both parts of this debate my conclusions are unchanged. Ehrman's pov stems from his emotions. He makes it sound intellectual, but a trained psychologist can easily see it isn't. Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent. He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too. I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts. As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty. As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself.

In his opening address James White seems to think that the so-called "tenancity" of the new testament ensures that the original reading is there. But what is the logic for this? And what is the use of it if we can't identify what that original reading is. He establishes this solely by appealing to authorities who happen to agree with him - Wallace mainly. Simply putting up images of NT fragments is not a reasoned argument as some have stated.

24:20 - That's why Dr. White specified _meaningful_

Have these two did any more debates?

The debate heavily emphasizes on variants that may or may not change the theology. What about certain expunged verses like 1 John 5:7 on the Trinity; Mark 16:9-20 on the Resurrection narrative; the woman caught in act of adultery; Jesus' sweats mixed with blood drops in the garden of Gethsemane; and the like???

This debate should have been "Bart explains history of bible and White going over Barts books"

Erhman said in Part One is that he wanted us to keep an open mind and entertain the notion that there might be a different line of thinking than what we normally think regarding the NT. Well this debate certainly opened up my mind. The question is, “ HOW DO WE KNOW, if we haven’t got the originals?” Well, despite James White view that because of the different lines of transmission in 95% agreement we can be fairly sure of the originals, I’m going to go with Erhman and conclude, “ We don’t know!”

A good debate. It outlined the positions well.

This is the debate I was looking for. Great job Bart ehrman.

Bart you are correct, we should ask the questions as there are reasons to question things. However the basic beliefs are consistent in my opinion of Christian beliefs. We need to remember that we live by faith.

Ehrman has said elsewhere that he lost faith in God because of the problem of evil, not this. Bruce Metzger, Bart's PhD dissertation advisor, knew everything that he does, and yet it he didn't come to the same conclusion.

First 40 minutes or so are crazy. Nice and respectful.

After watching multiples debates of Bart Ehrman with James White, Mike licona, Wallace, William lain Craig (both of them), I Realized that, Bart is extremely Intelligent for drawing his conclusion which led him his leaving Christianity, as NT and manuscripts(both together) failed to provide answers to simple Questions raised by Typical Christian Scholars. I thought Bart left Christianity bcz it failed to answer, however He left after studying in its depth and I can see, he's Extremely aware of what he's done in talk and debates. Enjoyed listening to both, but Bart always on Top, no offence to those who Just doing like or are obsessed with his view on NT and its manuscripts.

Why is James White, bringing in the Quran in such discussion; as if he wants Bart D. Ehrman to study it & write against it as well? If by mentioning "documented fact that there are textual variants in the manuscript of the Quran" he means the 7 or 10 different ways of reciting it, then he is doing the wrong comparisons between the history of the Bible & the Quran. The Quran is in tact & hasn't been changed since the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) wrote it. & it's the only book that has been memories verbatim. Should not compare it with the bible & its history.

Mr. Bart Ehrman clearly has no respect for Mr. James White in this debate. Just watch the first cross-examination and you can see it all over his face and body and you can hear it in his voice. He clearly hasn’t studied Mr. White’s works whereas Mr. White has clearly studied Mr. Ehrman’s works.

There may have been multiple lines of transmission, but we don't know how the scribes got their info. Perhaps one biblical writer was told an oral tradition. Others may have copied the writings of other scribes. We cannot ask the authors where they got the information. White assumes there was no body of people controlling the text, so there was nobody changing the theology. I say that there may or may not have been somebody controlling the theology, so the claim that the text was changed is just as plausible as the claim that it wasn't. I take the view that no conclusion can be drawn about the historical Jesus. If he did exist, we don't know anything about him. I would like to ask Dr. Ehrman why he thinks there was a historical Jesus given the dubious consistency/reliability of the text?

An axe head floats, the seas part, Samson alone kills innumerable enemies, two are struck dead by God in the new testament for lying (so why not for scribal errors), Elijah flies away, water into wine, feeding the 5,000, and so and so on. Why is it unreasonable to ask the original text to be preserved? One additional, relatively easy miracle? Really? Stop the sun in the sky but preserve some manuscripts is too hard? B.S. And given the extraordinary claims of this text, we MUST have a stronger standard, James. We won't hold the same standards as we would for Plato because the claims in the Biblical text demand incredible and impeccable originals.

Who else is here because James White mentioned it on the dividing line the other day? 😇

""We live in an age where people are looking for a reason not to believe." That statement is completely absurd. Waking up to the truth about the bible and losing faith in Christianity is a BIG deal and not something a person seeks. Quite the contrary, people research to back up and reaffirm their faith, not lose it. This is almost always the case.

These two despise each other, ehrman delivers the one two, like usual, in a lively way.

So, on one hand you can determine what the original text stated via textual criticism; and on the other hand if the original text was God inspired then it should've been preserved to begin with? Is this the basis of their debate?

As an atheist. I think dr. White and dr. Ehrman did a good job. As Bart said history is about probability. It's a scale. The bottom line is any question that says "how do you know" is useless without the originals.

Okay, so I gave Mr. White the benefit of the doubt, listening to part 1, but now I'm sure that he's dishonest, underhanded, he smears Ehrman by associating him with boogeymen (Islam, new atheists, postmodernism), and he's hiding the truth about himself: he's an apologist, not a scholar. His sales pitch is a facade of scholarship.

Bart Ehrman laugh like he won the debate 🤣😂😀 Dr James White is a one of the best Christian scholar. He is an inspiration, his messages touched my heart and mind. Greetings to him from Pakistan. Much love and respect for Dr James white✊❤️

Bart, having watched a number of your debates now, I do believe you'd make a great politician....

This has been a very humbling experience for dr James White.

This is priceless

25.8.18. 1. This is a very interesting intellectual biblical debate. However, to address Dr Ehrman in saying, e.g.: part 2, @ 44:19: "It does matter whether the Gospel of John calls Jesus...'The Unique God!'. That's very different from saying that Jesus is Divine if Jesus is 'The Unique God!'", and @ 45:03: "When Jesus was going to His death in the gospel of Luke, that He became so distressed as to began to sweat as if drops of blood;...it depends on which manuscript you read,...and it matters whether Jesus went through that experience or not...": 2. Yes, it very much does matter. Jesus Christ did not write down what He taught or did because He *Knew*, as He said, that we were not *ready* for, and that we would *distort* His Word. That was why, in various reports, Jesus is said to have clearly directed us, for explanation of His *Word*, to the coming: "The Spirit of The Truth", "The Everlasting Comforter", "The Holy Spirit" and "The Son of Man", Who would *replace* Jesus Christ as our Mediator - ("I must go in order for Him to Come"), Who would Judge the World - (because we did not believe Him Jesus Christ), Who would *remind us again* of what Jesus Christ had previously actually Taught, and Who would guide us into *All The Truth* : 3. "8 When He comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and Judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can *see me no longer* ; 11 and about Judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 I have much more to say to you, [than] you can now bear. 13 But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into *all The Truth*. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come". - Jesus Christ (John 16:8-13). 4. It is very unfortunate and extremely sad that Jesus Christ's Prophesy has once again come true, because hardly anyone, Christian or otherwise, is *seeking, "He, The Spirit of The Truth"* Who would guide us into *all* The Truth, as advised and admonished by Jesus Christ in John 16:8-13 above: 5. "6And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about Justice for His chosen ones, who cry out to Him day and night? Will He keep putting them off? 8I tell you, He will see that they get Justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man (Who will Judge) comes, will *He* find faith *(Conviction)* on the earth?” - Jesus Christ - Luke 18:6-8. 6. Jesus Christ's Promise of sending "He, The Spirit of The Truth" in John 16:13 is separate and different to His promise of sending "Power" at Pentecost, which had already occurred before Paul's admission of "only knowing in part", in his anticipation of also encountering The Spirit of The Truth in the future, 1Corinthians 13:12. 7. Therefore, according to Jesus Christ, *only* "He", The Spirit of The Truth, Whom we should all be Seeking, will lead us into *all* The Truth. All else is, unfortunately, speculative intellectual groping in the dark.

If you don’t understand Half of what James says it’s because his talking nonsense, he answers questions with very long explanations that either doesn’t actually answer the question that was asked or answers A question that wasn’t asked at the time. James agrees that a lot of things in the new testament was add-ons, but in his View he believes all of the original is still within the text even though we don’t have any originals to base that off of so it’s only his opinion. So even if all or some of the original text is in there, how would someone determine what is original from What was added? There’s just no way to divide the original from add-ons. James ask Bart so you would need a perfect copy of the original to believe it? Well yes lol when people call it the perfect word of God we would like to have it like that perfect, without all the Jesus is God theology added.

The reason Dr. Erhman is hesitant to write a book on misquoting the Quran, I think, is because he's not a scholar on the Quran. I was staggered by the fact that there is only about 50% agreement between the earlier Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. If that's true and the more earlier the texts are, the more discrepancies, then the logical conclusion is to say that the earlier texts are more unreliable.

I just find it interesting that Bart Ehrman plainly states, "Yes, the Bible misquotes Jesus." Of course, this statement implies that he knows what Jesus actually said in the first place...

I know I'm a little late to this party, but I have some questions. How do scholars determine the age of the oldest manuscripts? And how do they determine how many copies removed from the original they really are? Is it possible that we may have some originals? It's possible that Dr. Ehrman answered these questions when he said "we don't actually know anything..."

Considerable problem at 54:00. Who am I? I would not need govern or control His creation.