Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? MP3 Audio

This is the March 31, 2010 debate between two prominent New Testament scholars: Dr. Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman (specific debate info and bios here) on the topic: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? The format revolves around 7 critical questions on the topic, with each participant providing their prepared answers. Wintery Knight has his overview of the debate here. Video can be found here.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here. (90 minutes)


More Bart Ehrman debates and responses here.


Brian said...

I agree with James White's review.

Brian said...

Great points, G. Kyle.
I suppose it is the format that is most frustrating - but I agree that given the circumstances Evans took the right approach.

Unknown said...

I am pumped to study under Craig next year. Can't wait!

Unknown said...

Please is there any transcript for that debate?

Joed Lopez said...

Are you guys serious? We don't have the autographs...this point alone defeated Craig. We have copies of copies of copies that have differences and errors in the thousands...at best you can say the gospels (and entire NT for that matter) cannot be 100% accurate. This wasn't a debate, it was an exchange in views...the biggest point is not so much the style but the content...content is more important to style. Criticize the style and format all you want if that makes you better on how Dr. Evans lost, but one this is clear...Dr. Evans was perpetuating a theological view that uses the few historical and scholarly points that confirms his view all the while NOT explaining how we can be missing the originals and yet claim with 100% certainty it is God's Word.

I have no problem with anyone believing 100% its God's Word...but make the distinction, its your faith/theology, not a point backed up by scholarly or historical evidence. Period.

Overtaxed Thaigrr said...

All I can say is: it's pretty hard to consider the gospels and indeed the bible itself as anything more than the writings of ignorant iron age men after watching Ehrman's passionate and highly erudite presentations here (passionate, not frustrated!)

Evans by comparison, exhibits an embarrassingly transparent evangelical bias here, and clearly has not a shred of intellectual honesty.

I tuned into this debate with an open mind, seeking the honest opinions of those who have done the heavy lifting of learning the original tongues and studying the source material over the spans of decades.

From Ehrman I learned that the scriptures are erroneous and spun hearsay, and from Evans I got a Sunday School sermon. I used to be a believer but am no longer.

G. Kyle Essary said...

For some reason my previous comment didn't post...who knows?

Thaigrr, I'm glad you listened with an open mind. What about Ehrman's presentation was "erudite?" As someone who is pretty well read in the field of biblical studies, he actually seems more ensconced in scholarship and trends of the late 60s and early 70s that have largely been refuted, or at least moved beyond in the past 40 years.

Furthermore, what's the difference between an evangelical bias and a secular bias? Both worldviews shape our interpretation, no doubt. Why value Ehrman's over Evan's?

Furthermore, what were the reasons that you are no longer a believer? I'd love to hear any arguments that you put forth and have a dialogue if you are willing.


Believe that God can speak like a human, that is to say, has a tongue, mouth, vocal cords which means that it is a human we are talking about ... and the worst god monotheistic appears only recently in human history while millons of people are dead before jalmsi not have heard of him or spetree addressed eux.et also that God is not monotheistic because Muslims do refer to anything that Allah and Christians to their god even if one wants to believe that n 'there is only one gOD ... religions are not the fruit of the imagination of man to control and dominate and enrich not god. We take advantage of the ignorance of people and fireworks set for trick. A real deception.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive