How do you respond to Bart Ehrman? // Ask NT Wright Anything 

Ehrman Wright debate please!

". . .we can jolly well go back. . ." I love the way English people talk.

To quote from Misquoting Jesus, page 252, by Bart Ehrman, "Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times… If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of 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 is true.”

I love how there are so many "professional" Bible scholars in the comments section.

Your perspectives and experiences always color your opinion on the evidence. I am an attorney. In the law, it is axiomatic that no witness sees the same accident. This is not a prejudice; it is grounded on a lot of experience. Therefore, small differences in the Gospels are not something that would concern me a lot. In fact, if they were in perfect accordance with each other, it would raise suspicions that the authors conspired with one another for some reason.

Look at the person Jesus Christ first and foremost. If we don’t have that personal connection to Him we have nothing. “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.” ‭‭John‬ ‭15:5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I think ehrman when you read him isnt scary at all, and hes quite intelligent. He stop believing because he thought God was implausible, so of course hes going to explain the resurrection with a naturalistic lense, if you dont believe in God theres no other way to see it

Anybody know where I could find the podcast he references here where Wright and Ehrman dialogue?

The scientism described by CS Lewis back in the 40's and 50's has taken on a life of its own today. The literary market for anti-Christian narratives is incredibly broad. But, the new arguments are nothing more than the old arguments.

Bart's entire body of work misses the forest for the trees. Mere variations in text between the Gospels don't change the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected. It's not a textual debate. It's a historical one. Why we keep on and on about differences in the details between eyewitness testimonies is beyond me.

One of the disputed passages is at the end of Mark: "And they shall take up serpents..." It could be important, though.

The Gospels are not JUST historical accounts written in a grecoroman biography style about Jesus. It's much more than that, and of course Ehrman being a natiralist cannot comprehend that. It's a kind of gps about the soul's way back to the Father. It's nearly a necessity of reading the Bible and especially the New Testament with a theological context of a Platonic and Neoplatonic framework.

So does it matter if the oldest copy of a manuscript goes back to the 3rd century? You can have thousands of copies of a none genuine or fabricated copy. Does this matter? I think you should watch Bart’s debates with an open mind

Can you please get Bart Ehrman himself to answer N.T. Wright that would be a dope debate

*jolly well* I think by that alone, he’d win any debate against Bart

Where can I find the debate with Bart NT mentions? It's not on RU-vid.

Epicurus , Homer , Virgil , whoever . Lets not pretend that anyone is claiming that any of these people were the son of god . One would expect , at least , a higher standard of proof if one is asserting that anybody is / was god made man

The problem with Ehrman is that like most atheists his objections aren't intellectual, even if he is. His objections are purely emotional, which is why he has no real arguments to make. And NT is quite right: Ehrman will always try to change the subject or answer a question with a question whenever he's pushed on something.

If christians are so keen to confront the man, then debate him...don't do videos where he talks for a bit and then the commentators go on and on and he has no opportunity to reply....be a man!

Is it dishonest to call something a “manuscript” when it’s a scrap papyrus with a sentence or two on it? I think so and also think saying there are “thousands” of manuscripts is completely dishonest as well - especially given the ages of the complete ones and the fact that most of them he is probably counting (that might be considered the most ancient) are scraps. Fail by dishonesty and willful misrepresentation.

"One of the wonderful things about having copies of copies of copies is" ... we can argue this bs round in circles forevermore, making a tidy living out of pretending we are discussing something of import, while the public eat this stuff up and generally become none the wiser.

The difference with this ancient text is that humanity created a world view based on it

Even NT Wright can be right.

What he is not mentioning is the reliability of the genre. Religious texts have been notoriously unreliable. How can NT Write say that only small, irrelevant bits of text have been added when the whole prof of the resurrection was added, by another author, to the gospel of Mark--the earliest gospel and the foundation of matthew and luke. That's not a small detail to brush away.

Copies of copies ... aka more changes than all the worlds on the New Testament ... some of the critical ones being added later on etc

Matthew 23:34 [34]Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye will kill and crucify, and some of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will persecute from city to city;

Its not adding a "gloss" its fabrication and forgeries - e.g. last 12 verses of Mark, 6 letters of Paul, the story in John with the woman taken into adultery etc

I don’t know a single Catholic who thinks the Pope is indefectible 🙄

"Almost all the other texts from the ancient world we know only from one or two medieval manuscripts." Except we don't have 2.2 billion people today claiming that those other ancient texts are the word of God, with many claiming they're inerrant.

TEFLON COATED NT Wright. I would back Bart anytime.

Bart Ehrman's arguments are self-defeating.

The amount of copies is meaningless. Is Harry Potter more likely true because of the number of books in prints? What matters is how many original sources there are and how good those sources were.

The snack plate looks yummy!

The problem is that did Jesus claim to be God personally? How much percent of Christianity today belongs to the teachings of Jesus ?

"Way way back"... great thought, except it obscures the problem. The lack of NT actually using a number is the magician's slight of hand. Way way back is supposed to make you comforted. The reality isn't so comforting. He obscures that with the rare exception of fragments of Matthew, "way, way back" translates to 800 years after the fact, 350 years after the Church is official. In other words, nice thought but easily discarded.

He shud have dialogue with Bart face to face , Bart is Helping u to Open ur Eyes , people .

Hearing this made Erhman's arguments much more sound.

Bart Ehrman left Christianity for "whatever reason" shows a lack of research or willful ignorance of Dr Ehrman's position

Justin is the nicest and most polite and likeable moderator…just watched Dan Dennett vs Keith Ward, and it was such a friendly and charitable debate…onya Justin

Poor Christians! They lost original revelation, substitute it with "copies and copies and copies"!

No infallibility no salvation. Words of NT Wright are theological ideas .Truth and error which is the Serpent..Rev12v14. Revelation 12:14 [14]And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the desert into her place, where she is nourished there a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

I think Bart Ehrman is being misrepresented by a strawman. 1) We know that speeches were almost never copied word for word but that authors invented what they thought to be the core message of the speaker. This means that we are getting what the *authors* thought the message was. 2) The 7 interpolated passages including the trinity are evidence that substantive changes were made to the gospels. 3) We know of for a fact that there are more than 7 interpolated passages (this leaves aside the words we know of that were changed). The issue is not the passages we know about, but rather the ones we do not. 4) To say that the gospels well attested is an outright fabrication. What NT means by well attested is that we have many 5th to 10th century copies. For the first we have no complete copies of what was written for the first 300 years. 5) We have no partial (50% or more) copies for at least the first 300 years. 6) We only have small fragments for the first 300 years none of which add up to a complete copy. 7) Scribes had a vested interest in changing the text to suit their theological bias. 8) The scribes Mathew and Luke are examples of this as they altered Mark to suit their own purposes.

Luke 1:70 [70]as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been since the world began;

Christians say "Jesus died for you".... But also say "he rose again"...... So which is it?... There is not one written eyewitness account of Jesus during his lifetime. Strange since he was famous at birth, because wise men expected to see the future king of Jews who was born from a virgin married mother. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, five hundred years ago, has maintained that the gospels were originally written in Greek from 70 to 140 CE (Mark after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John no earlier than 140 CE). This proves that they were not written by Christ's apostles, disciples or by any of the early Christians. Others say: “There is no proof of the Gospels existing before 130 CE” Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels. Yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians. Paul was the first one to write about Jesus around 60CE; but he, like everyone else, never saw Jesus. He experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus.

So the Gospels are consistent therefore supernatural powers. There is a reason the Bible isn't considered history.

I find it rather amusing that a “scholar” like Wright can insist that he knows what is in the original documents, but there are none. His argument is that the originals can be reproduced from the copies, but unfortunately since there are NO copies from the first 300 years of the religion, how could anyone know? They can’t! Face it, what survives is copies of “Catholic” approved/written books…. That’s not good enough, but nice try NTW

So at 1:30 he literally admits that people might have added or deleted text to the bible and then proceeds to say that the Bible is no different than any other book that anyone else writes. Very interesting, i respect him for saying that. It's about time that Christians give up this silly notion that the Bible is the original unchanged inspired word of God. If it was before, it no longer is today. In that, he and Bart are in agreement.

This man is sat here saying, there could be one or two bits in the bible that may have been added.... wtf Isn't that enough to conclude that the entire text is blemished!

I'm not sure if that's what Bart Ehrman was saying, but this wouldn't help the fact that the earliest Gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus' death...a huge number can't fix that fact...but I'm not sure that's what this guy is addressing...

I would like there to be that debate to help Bart Ehrman. He needs it.

Bart just wants to claim that the whole thing is a sham because the eyewitnesses couldn't have written the Gospels and all that was written was basically hearsay 30 or 40 years later. His parents must be proud.

This is a fantastic point, we hold the NT up to a higher text-critical standard than so many other ancient texts. Its right to say that we cannot be positive about originals, but that can be said for basically all ancient texts.

Tom missed the point that Bart 100% agrees that 99.9% of the bible manuscript discrepancies don’t matter. What Bart says is that if the scribes copying it could make errors and have personal biases why don’t we accept that the original authors could make errors and have personal biases. Though my goodness Tom has a beautiful voice. Is voice envy a thing cuz I got voice envy.

A Prophet is the mouth of God..Eph4v11ministers are the mouth of the Prophet.

Blessed are those who have not seen but believed in Jesus Christ. Not everybody believed Jesus when he came to the world..only a few. The bible is true. It is the word of God..inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The bible cannot save..anyone..John 5:39 [39]Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me; Matthew 23:34 [34]Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye will kill and crucify, and some of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will persecute from city to city;

Even if every "jot & tittle" of the entire bible was the same as the earliest copies (which it is most definitely NOT) it would still be a moot point! Even if an "eye witness" personally told me they witnessed every miracle in the bible, I still would need WAY MORE evidence in order to be convinced of any supernatural claims. In the history of the world, there has never been any supernatural claim that has been proven to be true.

Most of the copies of the New testament we have were made over 1,000 years after the character Jesus supposedly lived.

And Evangelical pastors want me to see this guy as an enemy.

I would love to see Bart and Tom on the show for a discussion (not necessarily a debate though)

Bart Ehrman's strongest points haven't convinced me. Ehrman himself says that although there are many variations in the New Testament manuscripts, NONE of them compromises Christian doctrine.

Those two would make for an interesting show. You should definitely do that.

I love his accent. He sounds like the history teacher I didn’t have

I find Bart Ehrman to have rather simplified arguments for the non existence of god. How do we know anything happened in history without documents and word of mouth? Does Bart question all history, or just the parts related to god and Christ? As a matter a fact the Bible is the most well documented manuscript ever made. And historical events like the crucification of Jesus are very well documented, witnessed by countless people who give very similar accounts of what transpired.

Well done NT wright

I mean, having more copies doesn't make it more likely to be original. Compared to the greek classics, scribes have much more reason to make changes because of theological reasons.

Even if we had, say, the very original Gospel of Mark, in his own handwriting, all we'd know is what Mark wrote. Wouldn't tell us if it's factual. And it could still be objected that he was biased or incomplete, etc. and that this was the original lie. This kind of argument, that we don't have the original, is about infinite regress.

great new tsetament scholar

Thanks for all the good content. Would love to hear a debate between the two of them one day!

Bart looks debached and miserable.

I hate when apologists try to say that we have way more manuscripts than other ancient documents. That doesn't matter at all. We don't build religions aren't Plato or Homer. We don't claim Plato or Homer is the infallible word of God. I'm fine saying that the Bible is mostly reliable, but we can't say that it's 100% perfect.

I have heard Dr Ehrman say that the Bible is THE most well-documented book from ancient times based on original materials (paraphrased, as well as I can recall.) Seems to me that Wright and Ehrman agree on this point.

Pity stronger questions were not put to NT W. on this occasion

The rot had already impregnated into Christianity by the time Constantine's cronies got his hands on the books.

Sorry brothers to ask this question here: Please what microphones are there in the video? Thanks.

"how do you respond to Bart Ehrman"? the same way you respond to anybody you debate: be creative and give an answer you can back up with evidence. if you fail, then try again. don't scare yourself into thinking he's going to make you deconstruct, the ratio of Barts to Wrights is 1:1. think for yourself, buy a commentary, brew some tea, and make your own (reasonable) interpretations.

The worst part about Bart is that he doesn't even hold the majority viewpoint among scholars

Ehrman hath a "devil." He has unwittingly invited a, "Lying Spirit," within his Soul/Mind. I hope to GOD Almighty he wakes Up before Too long!

nice soundbite... doesn't answer the question... sure having 100000 copies, doesn't mean a thing... when you don't have originals

I would LOVE to see a debate between these historical and theological heavy weights, respectively.

Bart Ehrman is a sad story. He once was a believer and now he has regressed into a complete apostate from the faith. What happened to this man? He not only writes books attacking the reliability and integrity of the Bible and Jesus' claims to be God, he has now reached the point of even questioning the very existence of God. By denying Jesus' claims to be the Son of God, Ehrman now possesses the spirit of anti-Christ (cf. I John 4:1-3). Unless he changes his ways, he will one day stand before the very one he now denies and will do so as an apostate and anti-Christ. For the sake of his eternal soul, I hope he returns to Jesus before it is everlastingly too late.

New testament was on a blockchain before it was fashionable.

Ehrman is a disappointed lover. Unclothed, the girl of his dreams is not as he imagined her, So her human flaws bother him inordinately.

i also want to emphasize the role of having trust in the early church. that is a huge deal and is basically the difference between being a skeptic and a believer.

It’s more than “one or two texts” that aren’t certain.

Would like to see NT Wright debate Bart Erhman. That would be epic

From what I know- Bart left Christianity not for finding the whole thing to be a sham or the data not being enough, but for personal and philosophical reasons, namely the problem of evil and suffering.

it doesn't work like that, because we don't care whether or not Lucretius really existed, we just value the writings because they hold some sort of wisdom; it might have come from someone else altogether (we say it's Lucretius because this is how it appears but in actuality we don't give a toss). However, in the case of Jesus it's important no matter the content, we must ensure that it comes from him cos , allegedly, our life depends on that. When it comes to jesus we have to have a special approach not found anywhere else.

If the gospels are divinely written I am sure the author had no problem in publishing them, the rest from us is just wasted wind😮

Bart Ehrman's arguments are ones that could only be argued from the position of someone living two thousand years after the facts. It has to assume what was available to each generation as we go back in time. It ignores the content of the text about how it was written and treats it outside of it's claimed, spiritual author. How many original (autographs) did the writer of Lukes gospel produce? One? Twenty? 50? The internal text has Jesus after his resurrection with his eleven remaining disciples for forty days, so who says the gospels we'rent written and established then? Paul quotes the events of the gospels, so what makes us think he was trying to remember oral sayings, rather than having the gospels himself to study? This is because modern scholars have said they were written decades after the events. But why do they say that? What's their evidence? To the critic these are embellishments and fraud: Mark 13 :11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. Luke 1 :1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, :2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; :3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, :4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 24 :25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: :26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? :27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Act 1 :1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, :2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: :3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: John 21 :1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. :2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. John 21 :21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? :22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. :23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? :24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. :25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. 1 Peter 1 :24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: :25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 2 Peter 1 :16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. :17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. :18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. :19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: :20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. :21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ___ Luke 22 :17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 1 Corinthians 11 :24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 10 :21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 1 Corinthians 10 :16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? ___ Revelation 1 :1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: :2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. :3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Can you please upload the Debate between Professor Wright and Dr. Eherman?

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:35‬ ‭ There is a God who is personal and because we are personal and we cannot claim to know more than our creator and I believe and trust in God and the best evidence for him that he is powerful enough to perfectly preserve his word. And if Jesus was who he said he was and ride from the dead, then life and reality is far more complex that simple naturalism which cannot explain these issues

Thompson Barbara Lopez Charles Harris David

No, it doesn’t matter how many copies you have, it’s irrelevant. What matters is: do you have the original texts ? Also, what exactly does “original” mean ? The text that a writer first wrote, including notes ? The text the writer “intended” to be the finished text based on the “first written” text(s) ?

Ehrman's views require extreme scepticism about history. He also claims that memories are too unreliable for the gospels to be accurate recollections of Jesus' words. If that's true no oral tradition is accurate. The Iliad and the Odyssey were oral tradition. The Buddhist scriptures were an oral tradition for 400 years before being written down. The gospels are closer to Jesus' time than a lot of other ancient writings are to the original event.

He gave a non-answer. He didn't discuss the fact that it took forty years for anonymous authors to write the Gospel of Mark, another decade for Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and yet another decade for the Gospel of John. The earliest Christian writings date to two decades after the crucifixion. (Even Paul admits he only heard from others about the Resurrection.) They were written by educated Greek-speaking writers living outside of Palestine, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Dr. Wright also didn't talk about how different the Gospels are on the most basic facts (like on what day Jesus died), and how theological embellishments play around with these facts to advance an agenda (such as the change in the Gospel of John of the date Jesus died to the day before Passover to portray him as the lamb of God). The kernel of truth is really small, and it's risky to weaken the historical-critical method.

Similarly to WLC’s struggle to erode Ehrman’s point of view that the resurrection is *not* the most plausible explanation for the resurrection because Ehrman is an atheist historian, Wright tries to make the same point based on Ehrman’s previously rigid fundamentalist Christian background. The gist being that Ehrman is not depending on scholarship, rather on a presupposition of implausibility -no matter what. This is merely Christian gymnastics once again to prove what cannot be proved.

How can you verified 1000 copies, what methods do you used ? Text had to be same but the interpretation could differ. Now out of that 1000 copies, which one came with the original language (aramaic). As we know by translating, mistake oftentimes comes in substitution of words, and peoples who conducting translation always have some predisposition in their original mother tongue and more

His voice is creamy

Manuscripts for other books are also unreliable, but I won't go to Hell if I dont follow those other books. So the consequences of any other book being altered is almost nonexistent, whereas the consequences of the Bible being altered is much much more severe