Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the Text of the NT?

Do we have enough evidence to reconstruct the New Testament text? Or did early scribes corrupt it beyond repair? Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM's Executive Director, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace debate the issue of if we can trust the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University on October 1, 2011. At the time, this was the largest attended debate on the text of the NT ever. Dr. Mark A. Chancey, Professor of Religious Studies at SMU, serves as MC. Though Ehrman and Wallace have held public debates in the past, this one focused on providing a general audience with insider information regarding one of the most significant pieces of literature ever written. If you are interested in the New Testament and its reliability, this is sure to be a debate you will not want to miss.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.

Dr. Wallace, director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and New Testament Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has spent his life studying and digitizing ancient copies of the New Testament. He has authored and edited numerous books; most recently he has edited and contributed to Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. He asserts that we have good reason to believe that the New Testament text is reliable.

Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM Productions. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without the express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and CSNTM Productions is strictly prohibited.

[redfordwilson]

Debate actually starts at 8:22

Ur welcome 😎👉

[dorson]

Wallace is surprisingly candid and plays no tricks, among Christians. He admitted all the facts and reached exact opposite conclusions.

[chrismathis]

The thing I learned is that people will believe what they want to believe not matter the evidence.

[j.sethfrazer]

I REALLY wish they would’ve allowed for an actual back-and-forth dialogue between these two before the questions from the audience. I think that would’ve made this debate FAR more invigorating

[johncriscione]

The more Ive learned about the bible after becoming an atheist, the more I've come to realize how little I knew about it when I believed.

[oldschoolsaint]

Dan and Bart are top notch scholars and, seemingly, great people. I've watched several of their debates and, each time, am left with the same impression, namely, that they're simple engaging in an apples and oranges discussion. Bart seeks certainty. Nothing short of the original texts or something close to them will satisfy him. Dan is dealing in probabilities based on extant evidence. It makes for a very informative discussion but one in which absolutely nothing is resolved.

[Skriften]

One point I agree on :"We should all seek the truth to the best of our ability!"

[ashu]

I have to say, Wallace's opening remarks are easily done of the most charming and seemingly honest examples of debate I've ever seen from a Bible believer. Watching the rest now, but so far I actually like this Wallace guy, which is a very pleasant and welcome surprise

[southerndragonsystem]

One of the most evident conclusions I could see, is that evidence does not matter to those that believe. Their desire to believe is more important than evidence.

[steflmac]

Why interview only people who are obviously christian at the end. Ehrman was intellectually honest whilst Wallace believes he is correct without evidence.

[mbnall]

I remember being like the audience at the end. Pastors and apologists alike teach you to wave away and tune out arguments against the accuracy of the text, and it works. I remember genuinely not being phased when someone would make some of Ehrman’s arguments, and I felt like I was being intellectually honest. Just reminds me how feelings are terrible indicators of a correct position.

[davidbartig]

I think the real question is, even if we had all the original texts, would they amount to anything more than just being what someone said?

[rustlingbushes]

Dr. Ehrman, you are part of the reason why I have even a footing when interacting with Theists about the legitimate reasons for belief. I'm an Atheist, intellectually Agnostic, however educated about the scriptures. They are very impactful, and terrifying in their influence on otherwise decent communities. Hello, from South Carolina!

[rpg]

It seems I was watching a different debate than these folks at the end. None of Ehrman’s questions were solidly answered and Wallace simply insists that he’s comfortable assuming as correct what he admits he does not know. Typical.

[DrummerDude]

Honestly why can't we just have a question and answer session for hours between these two amazing scholars? Forget all of the typical debate methodologies and just have them arguing back and forth asking questions and answering each other. That is when the debate becomes quite intriguing and when i learn the most about this topic. Everytime i listen to a bart ehrman debate, he excells at refuting his opponents position during the crossfire sections. This is all i look forward too.

[Shaewaros]

What a wonderful conversation! Two highly knowledgeable experts conversing about a topic and offering two perspectives that complement one another. Inspite their differences Ehrman and Wallace managed to leave the audience with a thorough understanding of the essential questions related to the topic in question. Bravo! Excellent job!

[Robert_St-Preux]

Pretty amazing how people see what they want to see. The fellow at the end kept talking about the vast amount of evidence Dr Wallace presented, when he didn't show much at all. On the other hand, Dr Ehrman was on point throughout, but they seem to think he was either flailing or arguing from silence. Dr Ehrman clearly was the winner—and Dr Wallace never did get around to answering his questions!

[donaldciriacks]

When I was a child, I was told the Bible was without error. At age 20 I went to Bible school where this was reinforced. At age 25 I went to Seminary where this was reinforced some more. At age 35 I began a Graduate program in Religious Studies where "objective" research was encouraged by reading at least three textbooks on each side of the particular issue. It is now clear to me that the Bible has many errors.

[MichaelYoder]

now, rather than copies of copies we have translations and interpretations of translations and interpretations of copies of copies

[jackgray]

Wallace says ehrman was “Skirting the issues I raised with you” but yet after Erhmans first round of questions Wallace started by saying straight up that he wasn’t going to answer erhmans questions yet and proceeded with his own set of questions.