Daniel Wallace talks about the "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"

In this Religion Soup 2013 interview, Dr. Dan Wallace discusses Bart Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" and a response book he lead up.

[@dotosmelucio]

Mistakes are inevitable on the part of the scribes but the spoken word of God itself in its nature has no mistakes and its perfect and pure

[@dotosmelucio]

@ButWhatDoIKnow your thinking is delusional but not God's Word, your brain understanding is deteriorated and corrupted but not God's Word, because it is perfect when it comes out of God's mouth. Flaws are only on the side of human writing & Transmittance but not the spoken word of God in its nature.

[@dotosmelucio]

@ButWhatDoIKnow you are out of context study first theology then we can talk

[@dotosmelucio]

@ButWhatDoIKnow belief is different from theology, if you are knowledgeable enough. I need your profound comprehension about metaphysics of spiritual reality.

[@dotosmelucio]

@ButWhatDoIKnow what is your profession? Give me your credential and I admire you what ever is it. Coz I thought that the way you debunk is just like a kinder one. You speak foul word instead of sound textual criticism.

[@davidokeefe1898]

Thank you, Dr. Wallace.

[@susyhebner2456]

I agree with Dan, I bought into some of Bart’s theories. Have recently been listening to Dan & have my peace back again.

[@onemarktwoyou]

Wallace and Ehrman debating is hilarious. I actually agree with both so much that I enjoy their interactions.

[@jimchumley6568]

onemarktwoyou Dr D is "THE MAN"!

[@PilgrimNinja]

How can you agree with both? One is a Believer and the other an Apostate.

[@traildude7538]

They talk past each other so often it could be a drinking game. Dan is looking at the strength of the evidence and following it, Bart is demanding 100% certainty. And there are times where Dan seems to skim over some points while there are many times Bart seems to be seeking every reason to deny the validity of the message. In terms of scholarship they're both great, and I see how it's possible to agree with both a great deal purely on scholarship; it's where they leave aside scholarship and pursue an agenda that they diverge.

[@meetdogblack8277]

Psalm 119:69-70 KJV [69] The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. [70] Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.

[@protochris]

Ehrman like the mythicists wants special pleading for the gospel evidence. He wants to say the gospels are corrupted, but other texts of antiquity are relatively accurate from their source.

[@nofascistideologies8742]

Okay, so you have some accusations, let's hear your "wants" and "special pleading". Tell everyone how competing scholars of various sects of Philosophers were changing the writings of Plato, and how there were no competing sects of Christianity changing the texts of the gospels. This should be good for a brief laugh at you. Go

[@protochris]

No Fascist Ideologies Those competing sects occurred much later; the essential New Testament Canon of scripture was "universally" agreed upon by the 1st generation witnesses or those who knew the Apostles. The oldest manuscript of Plato is from the 9th century AD, almost 1400 years after his existence. That's not even close to the N.T manuscripts.

[@nofascistideologies8742]

protochris​​ Hahahahaha ""agreed upon in the 1st century" so the codexsinaiticus.org bible has 29 books of the new testament , and not 27? Agreed upon so Marcion of Sinope is walking around in the 2nd century with a 11 book bible? You are a fucking illiterate, uneducated, know nothing failure. 

[@nofascistideologies8742]

protochris There was no bible in 100 AD. There was no bible in 200 AD. There was no 27 book new testament, in fucking 300 AD you idiot.

[@protochris]

No Fascist Ideologies Hey dope head. I said the essential New Testament, not every single book was agreed upon. Marcion edited out ANY book that had a connection to the God of the Old Testament-he was a heretic. The canon of what we call the New Testament Bible was already written down by the late second century. Your cut & pasting shows you know nothing about what you're speaking.

[@jhunreywaslo7637]

Amen....

[@samuelbarrett5701]

the early manuscripts demonstrate that the biblical text's integrity is not negatively affected but attest to it's amazing preservation. to say that orthodox scribes would willingly alter their text is unfounded as pious people would want to make sure that they did their job correctly. If people want to bring out the accusation of altering the text for power, they would have to contend with the example given here by Dan, Bart Ehrman's argument of Matt 24:36 not holding up when considering the parallel passages. therefore, it is not likely that the texts were altered intentionally by scribes, other wise the manuscripts would be altered to advance the church's political aims of the day, thus giving us a different new testament - but that is not what the manuscripts demonstrate at all, they demonstrate the text remained essentially the same throughout its transmission. Even marcion in the second century was attacked for deliberately altering the gospel of luke, which also dispells the myth of early ancient orthodox scribes purposefully altering it when in fact the vast majority of them called out marcion's act.

[@traildude7538]

@ Samuel It's not really safe to assume that all orthodox scribes would have treated the text that way; in the Greco-Roman world adding a word or phrase here and there wasn't considered to be altering the writing. For Jewish copyists it would certainly have been the case, but for Gentiles it can't be counted on. There's also the fact that some variants appear to have come from a copyist not having a clean copy to work from and so they guessed at the text (which interestingly a Jewish scribe wouldn't have done; if they were looking at gibberish they copied the gibberish and didn't attempt to make it make sense -- there are Hebrew passages where the text is a complete mess due to this).

[@TruthBeTold7]

Bart has no evidence for his claims, only presuppositions.

[@samuelbarrett5701]

@danieljliversLXXXIX give an example of a discrepancy and whether it is significant or not.

[@samuelbarrett5701]

@danieljliversLXXXIX 1) demonstrate that these verses were purposefully inserted for political gains 2) demonstrate these texts that were inserted to significantly affect the teaching, doctrine, or understanding of the text

[@FrMoody]

@Straight White Male here is something the modernists do nor realize, the church had a memory of the text and knew when a text was wrong. Thus they did change errors. Also, wallace is a protestant. While he does not believe the text was corrupted, by rejecting Orthodoxy they are in principle THE SAME AS EHRMAN.

[@levedia]

@@FrMoody basically Earhman and Wallace if i understand correctly talk out of there asses.

[@davidclark6694]

@Samuel Barrett I'm a follower of the God of Avraham. The covenants are made with Israel (not the current state) and gentiles have always been included since the beginning. Now when you see the Tanakah not match up with the NT there has to be an issue. I agree with much of what Bart claims in regards to the corruption of the NT, but that does not mean the book is out the window, and Christians should worry and lose faith. Too many Christians use the NT as their security blanket and have made it their idol and none of the writers ever claimed to be speaking on behalf of the almighty. While this is circumstantial evidence you'll never find the evidence you'd want to see to prove it. Like a smoking gun. And even if you did, unless you're already searching you'll discredit the evidence and refrain from accepting it. The NT can be corrupted but it doesn't have to push people away from the God of Avraham. If it does then your faith is in the book and not the creator.

[@darapdiengdoh2179]

What is the evidence to show that the new testament we have today is the same with what the original author has written.

[@JumbaGumba]

a real meeting of the minds…. lol

[@mynameis......23]

Matthew 24:36 Mark 13:32

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

Does this mean Erhman is attacking the Eastern Orthodox Churches also?

[@brunoween]

No. He means the mainstream group in early Christianity. Which includes the Church Fathers.

[@lutkedog1]

Rev. J. Roger Allen He is only showing errors in the bible

[@emirbonilla3039]

Deberían de traducirlo al español para que ellos que no hablamos inglés

[@mikeyoung6347]

Isn't the "gospel of thomas" believed to be gnostic?

[@runaway-wind]

not really. it doesnt follow gnostic thought.

[@gapfenix]

In both cases Jesus Christ appears not to know from the human point of view. But we all know He said "I and the Father are one..." so, we as Christians may come to the conclusion that Jesus was stating a fact in the same way He replied to Peter when he asked Him: "and what about this one (referring to John)?" Jesus said: "If I want him to remain until I return... what's up... you follow me!"

[@nailbed710]

How can Jesus be God but not know the hour?

[@georgepenton6023]

Nerdo HP Jesus has two natures, divine and human. Jesus knows all things in His divine nature, like when He will return, but Jesus in His human nature doesn't know, or at least He didn't when He made that statement.

[@nailbed710]

George Penton So his human nature over powered his Godly nature? So was it Jesus’s human nature that performed miracles? How can Jesus not have known at that moment? Does the wisdom of God simply go away? Is flesh more powerful than the spirit?

[@lutkedog1]

Nail bed Matthew 24:36 Jesus don't know? ..."But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only". Jesus knows? Mark 9,1 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come with power." Not the Day or Hour but the Generation

[@Dreammaster695]

Because they are two separate beings (gods)

[@winburna852]

@@nailbed710 It just wasn't revealed to Him in His human nature from the Father.

[@motorhead6763]

1 john 5:7-8 Trinity is an admitted invention and insertion??? How is this fact wrong?

[@dylanbiggs3997]

motorhead James White has a interesting video on the Johnaneum Comma if your interested..

[@jimchumley6568]

motorhead Trinity is a conclusion and is truth.

[@lutkedog1]

motorhead Erasmus had no idea that this verse even existed but was one of Five thousand known manuscripts. But the only One LATAN manuscript existed in a library in Dublin known as 34. Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum, in his 1516 or 1519 editions because he was using only greek, but was forced to by the Catholic Church to include this verse in the 1522edition .Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. And If this passage is really authentic, why doesn't it seem to appear in any of the ancient versions of the Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, arabic, or Slavonic manuscripts? Scoffield Reference Bible notes says "It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. 1Jo 5:7." And another sinister verse is Psalms 45:6 Hebrews . 1:8 -But about the Son he says- .........Added to Hebrews . 1:8 "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. All to make Jesus into God.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear motorhead, I (and just about any evangelical theologian) accept that 1 John 5:7, has an interpolation in some translations as a result of a faulty source text, the Textus Receptus. This interpolation does support the idea of the triune nature of God, but since it appears to be an interpolation, it should not be used as a proof text for a Triune God. However, the Scriptural support for the triune nature of God is not dependent solely on this verse. You said, "1 John 5:7-8 Trinity is an admitted invention and insertion?" This means that your assertion is somewhat misleading. Allow me to clarify. In actuality, 1 John 5:7b, IS, an admitted invention and insertion; we call it an interpolation. However, The "triune nature of God" IS NOT, an admitted invention or insertion, and can be deduced from other verses in the Scripture. How is your "fact" wrong ? You have mistakenly tried to link the idea of the necessity of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7b, with the triune nature of God. If you would read just about any good Christian Systematic Theology it will explain this issue to you. Be Well, DZ

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear@@lutkedog1 , If I understand your assertion correctly, you are saying that the phrase "But of the Son he says," at the beginning of verse 8 (in Heb. 1), has been added to the text somewhere, hence you are asserting it is an interpolation. The Greek New Testament is quoting Psalms 45:6 "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;" Heb. 1:8 prefaces the quotation by informing the reader that this quotation from Psalms 45:6, is something that was said about the Son, then the OT prophecy from Ps. is quoted. Of course Ps. 45, is a messianic prophesy and Heb. 1 is speaking of messianic prophecies. I checked several Greek manuscripts (the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, Nestle 1904 GNT, Wescott & Hort) and this portion of text is in all of the Greek texts I checked. It is very unlikely that this phrase is an interpolation, if it is in this variety of Greek Texts. I didn't check any apparatus to see if there are any manuscript variations. However, if there are any variants in the manuscripts of this verse, they are certain to be so insignificant that the variation is not representative enough to be represented in any of the Greek Texts I checked. So in conclusion, I cannot find any objective reason for your objection. Explain just why you think there is a problem with this verse, because I don't see any problem here. Be Well, DZ

[@epiphanydrums5427]

Talk about skating the issue. The textural change is acknowledged, but the blatant denial of the greater problems it demonstrates with the doctrine of inerrancy is ignored. There’s no way to know if the text they cite for a defense was copied by the same scribe(s) The landslide of other examples lend more credibility to Ehrman (and others) on this example. You cannot seriously draw such a sweeping conclusion from the shaky example given. Orthodoxy on its usual parade of smug denial... Ugh!

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear Epiphany Drums, I would assume from the assertion you have made, that you have some basic misunderstandings concerning the concept of inerrancy. You seem to have the idea that the existence of interpolations, in some of the manuscripts (or even worse, interpolations in the translations) affects the concept of inerrancy. Interpolations in the manuscripts (or translations) is not a factor affecting the proper understanding of the concept of inerrancy. Many Christian theologians acknowledge that there are probably as many as 400,000 variants among the many Greek manuscripts (5800 +) we have in possession, yet this great number of variants, does not affect the concept of inerrancy. If you have an understanding that this would be a problem, then you certainly have a misunderstanding of the concept of inerrancy. Be Well, DZ

[@traildude7538]

@ Epiphany Something I discovered in a Greek Readings class was that when the early church said "inerrancy" they weren't talking about whether everything in the text was factually correct, they were talking about the aspect of the Word that it strikes straight to the heart, it doesn't miss its mark. The modern meaning of the term actually arose from the philosophy of scientific materialism where in order to be true a thing must be scientifically and historically correct.

[@protochris]

Bart is operating like a mythicist by fashioning arguments from silence based upon his own personal beliefs.

[@traildude7538]

That's an interesting way of putting it. I just see Bart as demanding absolute certainty, and always wonder why he does. Many people I know who ask for certainty are actually operating on a scientism level, assuming (usually without recognizing it) that if science doesn't affirm something it can't be true. I'd love to see Bart and Dan both tackle the subject from a point of view that's been done numerous times over the centuries: is the evidence sufficient to "convict" Jesus of rising from the dead? It was about the third such book I read when I just gave in, concluding that since the three books I'd read were from three different centuries and operating from three different legal systems there just wasn't any way to deny it. Since then I've read another three such books, from three more generations of scholars, like the first three by people who set out to dismiss the Resurrection but coming fave to face with the preponderance of the evidence and even "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[@adrianmor75able]

​@@traildude7538 I love your comment. Do you have the titles the books you read. Thank you. Blessings.

[@cooporlando]

Seems like a lot of useless debate. Go spend time with your families.

[@Thomas-ol3fq]

Not going to lie - 10 seconds looking at Wallace and a quick look at his digital watch made me not trust him hehe

[@qabiel2432]

you doubted jesus , im sure you will doubt him too

[@frizzyrascal1493]

You can distrust him, but to make that judgment call because of a digital watch…that’s something.

[@Dreammaster695]

Matthew 24:36 proves that Jesus and god the father are separate

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear Final Nightmare, Yes, that is something all genuine Christians agree to. The Father and the Son are separate, two distinct persons. Be Well, DZ

[@lutherenjoyer9629]

@@Silverheart1956 amen brother

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear@@lutherenjoyer9629, Yes, that is something all genuine Christians agree to. The Father and the Son are separate, two distinct persons. However, perhaps it is remiss to fail to clarify that The Father and the Son are separate, two distinct persons in one essence of divinity. The Scriptures appear to describe God as, One God, but three divine persons, within the one true God, Yahweh. In essence, a triune God. Some find this difficult to understand, but should we, as intellectually limited human beings, think we could fully understand the essence of an incomprehensible, supreme being, who is omniscience and omnipotent and immutable, for all eternity ? He doesn't fit into any capability that humans have to understand Him. He is beyond our frail sense of reasoning and logic. We just have to take and trust what truths He decides to reveal to us, about Himself, and avoid trying to squeeze Him into this little box of our human understanding. We are made in His image (as He has told us); He is not made into the image of our limited minds. Be Well, DZ

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @Final Nightmare, Yes, that is something all genuine Christians agree to. The Father and the Son are separate, two distinct persons. However, perhaps it is remiss to fail to clarify that The Father and the Son are separate, two distinct persons in one essence of divinity. The Scriptures appear to describe God as, One God, but three divine persons, within the one true God, Yahweh. In essence, a triune God. Some find this difficult to understand, but should we, as intellectually limited human beings, think we could fully understand the essence of an incomprehensible, supreme being, who is omniscience and omnipotent and immutable, for all eternity ? He doesn't fit into any capability that humans have to understand Him. He is beyond our frail sense of reasoning and logic. We just have to take and trust what truths He decides to reveal to us, about Himself, and avoid trying to squeeze Him into this little box of our human understanding. We are made in His image (as He has told us); He is not made into the image of our limited minds. Be Well, DZ

[@chirohof]

I find so many if not all of these arguments petty. Arguing over a word in one manuscript over another. I don’t think anyone would come away with different theology with say the TR vs the critical text. Same goes for most of any decent manuscript. Basically you get the idea of who Jesus is and what he said.

[@gracek1974]

Atheist working with Islam. Many Islamic people say we r atheist but always support Islam but critics the bible .GAME PLAYING

[@setuesetue9458]

i think so too....😱😱😱

[@jimchumley6568]

gracek1974 The age of great deception as Jesus warns about in Matthew 24.

[@sunflowerseeds4199]

@@jimchumley6568 the age of great deception happened right after jesus left.. hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born

[@racheladkins6060]

And you’re telling me Rome didn’t corrupt anything about the scriptures? Really?

[@traildude7538]

Actually most of the "corruption" came in the period between when Jews were prominent in the early church and when Christianity became licit. Jewish copyists were fanatic about getting every "jot and tittle" correct when copying, using methods such as adding the values of all the first letters in each line and the values of all the last letters and keeping spacing equal so they could quickly count the number of letters on a page, so when Jews were doing the copying the text got transmitted accurately. When the church became licit, professional scribes could be used, and they had their own methods of ensuring accurate copying. Between those would be when most of the mistakes got made. And if by "Rome" you mean the pope and/or the emperor, there's no way they could have gotten away with changing anything; the Christians in Egypt and across the border in Persia/Parthia and other places both inside and outside of the Roman Empire wouldn't have accepted any changes, and none of the manuscripts we have from any of those sources show any significant differences from those inside the Roman Empire.

[@nickmansfield1]

Feeble and in no ways addressing the stated topic. You should restate your title as who knows the hour or something.

[@rigavitch]

What utter drivel!

[@okfanriffic3632]

What ehrman fails to appreciate is the bible is a magic book. The god described in the bible is not subject to any standard we are familiar with on earth. Magic trumps everything, even if the bible seemed completely inaccurate it wouldn't be.

[@JimDeferio]

+ok fanriffic And what standard are YOU using to make such claims? C'mon, spell it out in detail.

[@okfanriffic3632]

+Jim Deferio The bible.

[@JimDeferio]

ok fanriffic LOL. I know the Bible and you are NOT using the Bible but your own imagination which has been tainted by sin.

[@okfanriffic3632]

+Jim Deferio maybe you misunderstand me. I'm using magic because it is easier to type, if i used supernatural would that be ok. You're not suggesting that the god of the bible is subject to natural laws, are you? God can do magic (has supernatural powers) so you cannot judge the bible by normal/natural standards.

[@dF_fallz]

@@okfanriffic3632 Do you still believe this?