And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (Surah 5:116-117)

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (Surah 9:30-31)

Patrick Madrid likes to avoid directing his readers to the "other side." Perhaps he is afraid his readers lack sufficient discernment to read that "other side"? Or maybe he fears that they are too discerning, for they might see that Madrid is an expert at dodging the real issues? It is hard to say. His history is long with his "anonymous hit pieces," going back to his cover-story in the Envoy magazine going after a footnote (yes, a footnote) in a CRI article I wrote, all the while never directing the readers to the actual source so they could read it for themselves. And though Madrid did not write that article, ironically, he published that piece which was written by...the same fellow he is promoting on his blog now, Fr. Hugh Barbour.

I am glad to know Madrid at least shows a small amount of awareness of the positions being stated "out here." Roman Catholic apologists show an appalling lack of concern for keeping up with what is being said in response to their claims. They really do seem to feel it is beneath them to sully themselves with the likes of those "Protestants" out there. In any case, Madrid blogged today, once again avoiding names (note how we don't avoid names?), taking a potshot at TurettinFan's comments in response to William Albrecht. As TurrettinFan notes in this YouTube response, it does not look like Madrid read the article fully. Be that as it may, it is another example of how the leading Roman Catholic apologists mislead their readers. They simply refuse to deal with one documentable historical fact: Augustine taught that the body of Jesus Christ is present in heaven, and that it is not present on earth! Do what you will about anything else, interpret any other statement as you will, the fact is Augustine did not blush to speak of the church as lacking the physical body of Jesus. A fair reading of Augustine will take this into account, but, remember, Rome cannot fairly deal with the early writers by self-imposed definition. I provide just one of the many citations of Augustine that could be offered in support of this assertion below the video.

Just one note to add. Madrid made much of his allegation that TurettinFan did not identify the "lay Catholic apologist." Of course, we have identified William Albrecht, by name, far more times than William would probably like. But the fact is, Madrid was just sloppy. Note the last paragraph of the very blog entry Madrid was responding to:

In fact, with the omitted material reinserted, the text of Augustine and his rejection of the literal bodily presence of Jesus on earth after the ascension becomes even more clear than it was before. Accordingly, I would like to thank the apologist in question (William Albrecht) for bringing this to our attention, but I would also like to encourage this apologist to focus on the fact that Augustine clearly did not view the Eucharist as providing a continued, literal bodily presence of Jesus on Earth, consistent with the Scriptures which teach...

There's the name, clear as can be. But that would have gotten in the way of Madrid making this statement:

I note with some amusement that this Protestant was at pains to avoid mentioning the name of the Catholic being responded to, referring to him only as “a lay apologist for Catholism” (this, was not a reference to me, by the way). It's amusing because this is the same group of Protestants who complained (and still do complain) that one of them was not identified by name in an article written by a bona-fide Catholic patristics scholar, critiquing one of that Protestant's more lame attempts at interpreting the Early Church. (The article appeared some years ago in Envoy Magazine, the Catholic journal I publish).

I can only chuckle at the double standards so visible among those particular Protestants. But I've come to expect this kind of thing from that crowd. And since that blogger deemed it better not to mention any names, I shall follow suit here.

Chuckle away, Patrick! The fact remains that 1) you didn't even read the entire article you were responding to, and hence are in error, and 2) that Envoy hit piece remains one of the most pathetic examples of the desperation of Rome's apologists ever put in print, and your name will always be associated with it. Any honest person who read the original article, then read Barbour's horrific response, and my refutations of it thereafter, can only shake their heads in wonder at how low the defenders of "Mother Church" will go.

Augustine (354-430): The head of the Church is enthroned in heaven, from where he rules and guides his body; and though the body is still debarred from the vision of him, it is linked to him by charity. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 17, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 51-72, Psalm 56.1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001), p. 104.

Micah and Carla have cooked up a second version of the Second Century Witnesses graphic, showing the papyri that can be dated to the 2nd century AD. You can pick which one you like best, and compare them here. I have linked to the new graphic and how it looks on a black t-shirt as well. I think these shirts look great, and they should be great conversation starters! While these are not "official" offerings from A&O, Carla works hard in putting together enjoyable "Team Apologian" materials, and the profits from the sales go to the ministry. So take a look not only at this neat idea, but at the rest of what Carla offers as well.

Well, we got our technical difficulties fixed! Let's see if my memory can handle the 48 hours that have elapsed! In the first half hour we discussed Sean Penn's anti-Christian diatribe where he pontificates that Christians should be ashamed of our faith, and then in the second half we discussed apologetic methodologies, contrasting a soundly biblical approach with that of evidentialism. Here's the program.

35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But for reasons completely beyond my understanding, we can't get it uploaded. Hopefully that will be fixed today!

Narrated Masruq: Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr. The latter said, "That is a man I continue to love because I heard Allah's Messenger () saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b".

Az-Zuhri said: "Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104)

Abu Yunus, the freed slave of Aishah, said: "Aisha ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: 'When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat.' So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: 'Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.' She said: 'I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.'" (Jami At-Tirmidhi 2982)

Dr. White is human. To those of us who know and love him, this is no surprise. We realize that he is a man, just like us, and that consequently he makes mistakes. As Alexander Pope said, "To err is human, to forgive divine." Dr. White is human and he, from time to time, errs.

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me you will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes....He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.

The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world...." (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).

Instead, the quotation omitted "of departure, and" and also changed "eve" to "even."

This was a transcription error that Dr. White either made himself or failed to correct (if he took the quotation from another source). Either way, this error is an example of one of the most common kinds of scribal errors: homoeoteleuton owing to (or occasioned by) parablepsis. Those who have listened to the debate on "Misquoting Jesus" between Dr. White and Dr. Bart Ehrman (link) will know what I am referencing. This is an error where a portion of the text (in this case "of departure, and" is omitted due to the transcriber's eye confusing two similar-looking series of letters. In this case "of departure" and "of depriving" begin with the same first five letters. Thus, Dr. White looked away from the text perhaps while typing "even [sic] of dep..." and landed back on "of depriving" rather than on "of departure," resulting in the error we see. The spelling variant of "even" for "eve" could be attributed to any number of issues too, but it likewise appears to be occasioned simply by an error in typing. Perhaps Dr. White (or whoever transcribed the text) had recently been reading the KJV, which tends to prefer the spelling "even" (e.g. Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.)

This error was brought to our attention by an apologist for Catholicism who identified it as Dr. White's "MISUSE" (caps in original) and "mishandling" of Augustine. He's right in saying that the quotation was inaccurate, in that it included this transcription error. On the other hand, this sort of error was really trivial. The inadvertent omission of "of departure, and" was simply a formal error, not a substantive one.

In fact, the apologist for Catholicism actually noted only the minor transcription error in the second paragraph of the quotation, but overlooked a similar instance of homoeoteleuton occasioned by parablepsis in the first paragraph it was written "In other words, in respect of His divine presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," but the full quotation should be "In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," (omitted part shown with underscore). Here the matching series of letters is "in respect of His [divine] presence." Dr. White, or whoever was transcribing the quotation, appears to have accidentally jumped from one "presence" to the next, and picked up at the second "presence."

We have fixed all three of these errors at the original web page where they occurred (link).

Unfortunately, however, the apologist for Catholicism by focusing on the transcription error missed the point for which Augustine was cited. Augustine believed that Christ's bodily presence was removed to heaven. Thus, although Augustine agreed that Christ's divine presence continued to be with his disciples, Augustine believed that the ascension of Jesus into heaven "deprived" the disciples of Jesus' presence "in the flesh."

What does this demonstrate?

This demonstrates that Augustine did not hold to the later medieval innovation of transubstantiation. This fact is not surprising to those who permit the church fathers to be the church fathers. This may, however, be surprising to those who imagine that the church fathers believed everything that the Vatican teaches today.

In conclusion, yes - Dr. White is human and sometimes falls into homoeoteleuton owing to parablepsis, just like any other scribe. Such changes to the text of Augustine are not intentional and do not (at least not in these cases) change the meaning of what Augustine was saying. In fact, with the omitted material reinserted, the text of Augustine and his rejection of the literal bodily presence of Jesus on earth after the ascension becomes even more clear than it was before. Accordingly, I would like to thank the apologist in question (William Albrecht) for bringing this to our attention, but I would also like to encourage this apologist to focus on the fact that Augustine clearly did not view the Eucharist as providing a continued, literal bodily presence of Jesus on Earth, consistent with the Scriptures which teach:

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

-TurretinFan

Tommy interpreted White's comments within the scholarly ethos of the upcoming book and not within the discussion on the AOM website. White should not have faulted Tommy for this.

A visitor to our chat channel (timb) pointed out to me that John Martignoni, Roman Catholic apologist, is posting a "book" on his website. In the third chapter, found here, Martignoni demonstrates that no matter how many times to demonstrate a lie is a lie, as long as it promotes mother Rome, well, it's worth repeating! Note his claims:

Another part of the historical perspective is this: When Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church, and started teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it was around the year 1520. By the year 1600, it is said there were more than two hundred Protestant denominations. By the year 1900, it is estimated the number of denominations was almost a thousand. And, now, in the year 2009, there are estimated to be more than thirty thousand or more Protestant denominations! Each denomination claims to be based on the Bible alone, and most claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit; yet, none of them have the exact same body of doctrine, and many, many of them have doctrines that absolutely contradict one another.

How can that be? Can the Holy Spirit - which is supposed to lead us unto all truth – can this same Holy Spirit lead different people into different doctrines – doctrines that contradict each other? No. In other words, the historical perspective shows that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura tends towards division within the Body of Christ. The lesson of history teaches us that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done nothing but divide the Body of Christ.

Yeah, there it is again. The 30,000+ Protestant denominations myth. We have debunked this myth in the past, fully. The claim is indefensible. So when someone repeats it, they are demonstrating that 1) they are probably simply quoting someone else, never having looked at the data themselves, or 2) they do not care enough about the truth to honestly represent the facts. I commented on this recently again here. It is truly amazing to see how errors get repeated over and over and over again. Then again, these folks follow a religious leader whose exalted position developed over time through the use of politics and fraudulent documents, and even though that is well known today, the Papacy remains, hanging in mid-air, its historical foundation washed away. Therefore, we shouldn't be overly surprised that once apologists get hold of a particular argument, they will keep using it, no matter how bogus it is factually and historically.

Surely one of the most eclectic DL's in our history, any only partially on purpose! I had intended to address three issues: the discussion over on the ETC blog, some comments on the deep insights available from the 119th Psalm, and a discussion of the Islamic understanding of the nature of man as created by God. Got to all three, but then, as I was getting ready to wrap up, our LDS listener and sometime caller Pierre called to discuss the LDS concept of the priesthood. So we went about 8 minutes long so we could talk to Pierre. Here's the program.

1) Do not attempt to offer a possible reason for why someone would completely misread your purpose and statement. You will be accused of "mocking" people if you do. Of course, if you do not do that, you will be accused of being mean anyway. So, lesson learned: you can't win.

Specifically, I am sitting here in shock this morning that anyone on the ETC blog thought my offering the possibility that Dr. Wasserman misunderstood me due to the language barrier (and this includes Dr. Wasserman) would be so unkind, so unfair, as to attribute to me mockery of Dr. Wasserman. You are truly left wondering if there is any room for discussion when there is this level of sensitivity in the forum. There is a simple fact here: I stated that the telling statement was the claim that more had taken place in the last fifteen years in textual criticism than in any other fifteen year period in the history of the discipline. I did not say that doing another edition of the work in question was a "very telling statement." Please remember, Dr. Wasserman's immediate response to his own misreading of my statement was, "It is apparent that White knows very little of what he is talking about."

2) Do not expect the Golden Rule to be applied to you if you are an evangelical. If you are going to address someone like Ehrman, you better do your homework. Read his works, listen to his lectures, study his articles. If you do not, you have nothing to say. However, anyone can comment on what you say as an evangelical without worrying about anything you have ever written or taught over twenty or more years. Just remember, the context of the evangelical is irrelevant; the context of the star-level scholar is all important. Also, it is fair to assume the evangelical believer is ignorant of anything you wish to attribute to them, even if you have no idea whether they are in fact ignorant of those subjects or not.

Now, of course, some of the comments that have appeared on the thread could be from some of my dear fans who seem to flock to any blog I reference here. Since anonymous posting is allowed, it is hard to say.

If I have time I will respond to Dr. Wasserman later today. Basically, it seems that no matter how clearly I express myself as to my intention, that is insufficient. More on that later.

Secondly, one person actually was kind enough to cite The King James Only Controversy. Unfortunately, the individual is in error. He was making reference to the new emphasis upon attempting to exegete the variants in a manuscript so that one can develop theories concerning the theology and prejudices of an individual scribe. For example, many are now investing much time and effort (let alone resources) to attempt to impute motivations to scribes, such as anti-Jewish prejudice, anti-woman prejudice, etc. Even more troubling is the assumption that a particular scribe would have held to theological position X, and hence, knowing full well about a controversy over doctrine X, would make changes to support X. Historically, the vast majority of scholars have assumed simple scribal error when there was no compelling reason to think otherwise. That paradigm has changed, so that somehow we can figure out what a scribe's theology was, and from that, examine scribal variations! Yet, the fact of the matter is, we do not know the identity of the scribes in the vast majority of instances, let alone how aware any of them were of the current theological controversies. Indeed, could it not be logically argued that in the case of scriptorium-produced manuscripts, the scribe might be utterly ignorant of the current theological arguments within the Christian community? But even if we have a Christian scribe, upon what logical foundation can one assume to know his personal theological convictions, let alone the depth of his knowledge of current controversies? Is it really that difficult to see the foundation of my objection to this activity?

However, James Snapp Jr. confuses the above attempted mind reading of specific scribes regarding specific theological believes and specific levels of theological and controversial knowledge with the standard recognition of scribal errors based upon different factors, such as familiarity with parallel passages (Ephesians/Colossians). Likewise, the expansion of piety is a general observation, not an assumption that a particular scribe in a particular context purposefully changed the text due to a particular controversy in his day. Likewise, Snapp writes,

On p. 167, after stating that KJV-Onlyists object to the reading "Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2 on the grounds that Mark /couldn't/ have written that because it would be a mistake, Dr. White writes, "It is quite certain that some scribes early on in the transmission of the text of the New Testament had the very same thought." No mind-reading here!

No, no mind-reading here, for we are not attributing to the scribe some kind of particular theological claim in a particular theological dispute of his day. The manuscript tradition plainly gives evidence of a strong, nigh unto universal desire to harmonize parallel accounts in the gospel, and to "fix" perceived problems, just as here. I was simply observing that the same misconception about the nature of citing OT passages that exists amongst KJV Only advocates existed in the past as well. None of these examples indicates any inconsistency in finding modern attempts to focus upon a speculative attempt to create some kind of specific "scribal theology" that then allows you to somehow attribute entire motivations to the Christian community at the time of the writing of a particular manuscript is a meaningful replacement for the proper emphasis upon that last, troublesome word in Metzger's title, "Restoration."

Finally, if I may observe an oddity of the academy that is being seen once again in this brief discussion. Some of the commenters have used language such as "making Ehrman a whipping boy" in their knee-jerk reaction to anyone outside the "inner circle" daring to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Specifically, would it not be relevant to an analysis of Ehrman's intentions and motivations to take note of his upcoming book, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). What a title! Quite fitting for the supermarket tabloid section, to be sure, but why isn't anyone pointing out that Ehrman seems to be padding his bank account by repackaging old liberalism as if it is the new results of "real" scholarship? Why is it that the evangelical who points this out is the bad guy, guilty of making Ehrman a "whipping boy"? Here is the advertising blurb provided by Ehrman's publisher on Amazon:

Picking up where Bible expert Bart Ehrman's New York Times bestseller Misquoting Jesus left off, Jesus, Interrupted addresses the larger issue of what the New Testament actually teaches—and it's not what most people think. Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed:

* The authors of the New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works

* The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later

* Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and John all represented fundamentally different religions

* Established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians

These are not idiosyncratic perspectives of just one modern scholar. As Ehrman skillfully demonstrates, they have been the standard and widespread views of critical scholars across a full spectrum of denominations and traditions. Why is it most people have never heard such things? This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus.

Excuse me, but if this isn't a blatant attack upon Christianity, what, exactly, would be? So I am confused: is it OK to write "popular" books blasting the Christian faith as long as you have written "good scholarship" in the past? From whence comes this scholarly schizophrenia? And more importantly, why is it "wrong" to point these things out? And while I am asking rhetorical questions, why is Ehrman allowed to dodge the theological ramifications of his claims, stating he is a historian, not a theologian, and yet he writes...theological books, like this one? Am I the only one who finds this most odd?

My search for consistency of standards continues.

Until very recently, I was unaware of the Christian apologetic James White. Apparently, he has recently debated with Bart Ehrman on whether the Bible "misquote" Jesus or not (alluding to the title of Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus).

On his Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog he commented yesterday (here) on Bart Ehrman's recent announcement that a second edition of The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questionis (eds. Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes) is in the pipeline, in which he found "a very telling statement."

For me, the most exciting thing about being a textual critic over the past 15-20 years has been seeing how textual criticism has moved beyond its myopic concerns of collating manuscripts and trying to determine some kind of "original" text to situating itself in the broader fields of discourse that concern an enormous range of scholars of Christian antiquity. Textual critics are uniquely situated to contribute to these larger concerns, meaning that now, finally, the work textual critics do can be seen as widely important and relevant, not simply of relevance to textual technicians.

It is apparent that White knows very little of what he is talking about. Just because he happens to strongly disagree with Bart Ehrman's views of the transmission of the NT, which I am not trying to defend, he seems biased against everything associated with Bart Ehrman in a very unfortunate way.

Ehrman's monograph from 1993, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was already out when the volume on the Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research came out in 1995. To a great extent, the latter volume, with contributions from a wide range of twenty-three leading scholars, reflects a consensus on the status questionis in most areas of the discipline, while in some other areas a variety of views are represented. (Admittedly, the "Byzantine priority"-position held by e.g., Maurice Robinson is lacking.) In any case, I am quite confident that the second edition will in no less degree reflect the "width and depth" of scholarship in the field.

A lot has really happened in NT textual criticism in the last fifteen year period, which has very little to do with postmodernism. A lot of significant work has been and is being done in an increasing pace, most notably at the leading centres in Münster and Birmingham. In addition to a steady stream of new MSS (e.g., 26 more papyri and many more uncials, minuscules and lectonaries), we have seen the publication of new major editions, and significant developments in methodology. And, yes, even some new scholars have entered the field ;-). As one of those, who, btw, has not "thrown in the towel on the 'original text'," I very much look forward to contributing to the second edition.

(Besides, White could have mentioned where he got the announcement from in the first place.)

Tommy has suggested that "It is apparent that White knows very little of what he is talking about." And yes, perhaps White is unaware of the more recent film acquisitions and investigative research being undertaken at Muenster and Birmingham, as well as the photographic work being carried out by Dan Wallace. But it is clear in White's comments that this is not what he is addressing; rather, his comments relate to the issue of underlying theory and praxis rather than material matters.

Speaking from a solidly evangelical perspective (and differing strongly with White on text-critical issues), I would say that, from an apologetic standpoint, White has put his finger directly on a real problem, holding up a proper mirror to evangelicals within the discipline.

As White notes on his blog, the "paradigm shift" is in fact a "shift in worldview" (the latter not included in Tommy's quote), and this shift in fact does represent "an abandonment of the paradigm of the preceding generations."

The issue of the Greenlee review and subsequent comments posted here also seem to reflect this very point: the evangelical worldview and text-critical model is simply belittled or ignored due to the paradigm shift.

Read about it.

Started off with some comments on Roman Catholicism, then played some interesting segments from a talk given by a BYU scholar. Took a call after the break that led to a discussion of a review of Greenlee's new work on textual criticism. We went a bit long because I wanted to have enough time to decry the promulgation of a non-Christian, unbelieving, secularism in the study of the New Testament text. I see this as the chief apologetic issue of our day. Here's the program.

Bart Ehrman has announced that a new edition of Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research is being put together. I found the reason he noted to be telling. He wrote,

What was then the state of the question has now become a bit dated. A lot has happened in fifteen years! Arguably more than in any comparable fifteen year period in the history of the 300+-year-old discipline.

What has happened in the past fifteen years that is "arguably more than in any comparable fifteen year period in the history of...the discipline"? Has there been a discovery of a new Sinaiticus? Something akin to the DSS in OT research? A massive papyri manuscript find? No, actually, nothing like that at all. So why the paradigm shift?

Simple: the arena has become predominated by post-modernists who have thrown in the towel on the "original text" and have openly and shamelessly said, "Hey, let's talk about what we can impute to nameless scribes based upon our mind-reading the reasons for their textual variations!" This is nothing less than an abandonment of the paradigm of the preceding generations, a hi-jacking of the discipline itself. While speculation about possible scribal prejudices may have its place, it will alway be just that: speculation. And there is the rub: once you turn to speculation about what someone was thinking way back when, the entire field--including the original words and intentions of the authors--becomes just so much "speculation." Just as political liberals assure us that we cannot possibly know what the writers of the Constitution intended, so too theological liberals (and rank skeptics) assure us that whatever Paul or John or Peter wrote, we are pretty much out of luck in really knowing today.

Beware "leading scholars" who lead revolutions based upon a shift in worldview rather than a sudden increase in the underlying data relevant to that area of study. History tells us their revolutions are rarely worthwhile.

Thankfully, despite the fact that Western society as a whole has added abortion to the list of "issues that you cannot discuss because we have decided the issue and you just need to shut up or we will punish you," there are still those who choose to speak out. A further description of this speech found here.

It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are called the spiritual estate, while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office [LW 44:127].
   
It follows from this argument that there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, and are truly priests, bishops, and popes. We are all one body of Christ the Head, and all members one of another. Christ does not have two different bodies, one temporal, and the other spiritual. There is but one Head and one body. [LW 44: 129-130].

Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, "Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labor at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise."
   
What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, "O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labor, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight" [LW 45:39].

"Keep in mind, that you need not do any work for God nor for the departed saints, but you ask and receive good from him in faith. Christ has done and accomplished everything for you, atoned for your sins, secured grace and life and salvation. Be content with this, only think how he can become more and more your own and strengthen your faith. Hence direct all the good you can do and your whole life to the end that it be good; but it is good only when it is useful to other people and not to yourself. You need it not, since Christ has done and given for you all that you might seek and desire for yourself, here and hereafter, be it forgiveness of sins, merit of salvation or whatever it may be called. If you find a work in you by which you benefit God or his saints or yourself and not your neighbor, know that such a work is not good." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:36].

Canon 1: God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a "sure word of prophecy" and "Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, "the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means" (Matt 5:18).

Canon II: But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, "who had been given the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

David Wood linked to this discussion of the banning of Geert Wilders from the UK. I really have to wonder what Wilders said in Fitna that was any "worse" than what I said in my debates regarding Muhammad and the Qur'an? I wonder when I will be banned as well? Given the "my head is blissfully in the sand, I have no idea" attitude of the MP in the discussion, I could be banned at any time, and that without the slightest review of anything I've actually said! I enjoyed the Muslim participant's engaging personality and insightful points. He's right: the government has banned debate on the topic, despite the MP's pitiful "you can always fly to Holland." Dhimmitude is a horrible thing, especially when it is being promoted by spineless Westerners who no longer believe anything is really true, anything is really important.

A word to my Muslim friends: you may well think that the collapse of the West into a secular socialism, combined with economic anarchy, is somehow relevant to the truth claims of Islam. Given the kind of wishy-washy churchianity that you have probably encountered, I can understand why you might think that way. But let me tell it to you straight: from the Christian perspective, God would be holy and just to flush Western culture right down the Tube-O-History given the rampant sin and rebellion that marks that culture. The light of God's truth has shown brightly in Western countries, and yet they have turned their backs upon Him and His ways. God will not be mocked. What we see today in the hatred of the culture for holiness and righteousness is part and parcel of God's wrath, as He is removing His hand of restraint. Bringing judgment upon sinful cultures is perfectly in line with Christian teaching, even if most of those who call themselves Christians today have been infected by post-modernism so that they refuse to speak clearly about God's wrath. Don't confuse those forms of churchianity that are ashamed of the hard truths of the Bible with true, biblical Christianity.

Rick Santorum with some...needed sanity.

There is a truth divide in the realm of apologetics. I refer to the attitude one has toward truth, and how consistently one seeks to live in light of one's own confession of fidelity to truth itself.

The first is found in the continued ramblings of William Albrecht, a Roman Catholic layman "apologist." It is hard to take William seriously, given his evident lack of serious study of any of the requisite topics one would need to know to provide meaningful commentary on the apologetic landscape. But since men like Steve Ray, another "lay apologist" who is given frequent exposure on Catholic Answers Live, have directed people to Albrecht, he has been given a small stage from which to hurl his invectives toward Geneva. And it is just that: incoherent invective laced with unfounded ipse dixits. I truly wonder if de Sales had this kind of meandering rhetoric in mind? I doubt it.

In any case, James Swan has posted an audio response to Albrecht's video. Here is the video, here is James' response. Albrecht talks about "the gospel according to James White," etc., and dishonestly attacks James Swan as a "cronie" who simply follows my every whim. Of course, James is not a Reformed Baptist, but hey, those little details aren't important, right? I point this out for one reason: I would like someone to send me links to the Roman Catholic apologists who decry the kind of slash/burn/misrepresent tactics of Albrecht, Ray, etc., and who do so by name. I haven't looked at Benjamin Douglass' materials recently---I could hope he would have something, but is there anyone else? If not...why not? Where is the truth loving Roman Catholic apologist--or is that problematic, since to love truth is to love Mother Rome?

But the kind of nastiness you will find flowing from William Albrecht or Steve Ray is, for most of us, to be expected, given their theological paradigms. I have said many times, however, that the most hardened Romanist is no match for a good ol' King James Onlyist when it comes to venom (and irrationality). I don't go around looking for this stuff, but folks send me links or mention things in our channel. Today I glanced through Kent Brandenburg's wild-eyed "response" to my comments on the DL, but then I ran into the comments section, and I will tell you, these folks are scary. Once again, I'm sure there are KJV Only folks who try to take the Bible's commands seriously, but where are they in rebuking this kind of fanatical behavior? I suppose they are out there...somewhere. I just don't know where!

The temptation, of course, is to stoop to the level of the William Albrechts and Kent Brandenburgs of the world. But there is no reason to do so. One need only look back through history to see that while there have always been men like this, sniping at the work of God, history often forgets their names. For those who pretend to honor truth on the one hand, and then deny it by their behavior, their words, their actions, on the other, can make no lasting impact.

1 The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. 2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. 3 For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; 6 Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: 7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. 8 We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth. 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. 12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true. 13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: 14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

When I got back to my office tonight after church someone in channel directed me to this blog post. Now, I must admit, I couldn't follow most of the post. It sort of...wanders a bit. But I loved how it started out:

This may be a warning that James White may soon be as wacky as your typical so-called Reformed Baptist.

[As a clarification, Reformed Baptist have this tendency to believe (or at least act as if they believe) that one can by logical argument convince someone against their will to be a Christian without any assistance from the Holy Spirit.]

Started off looking at a few odd comments made in the textual arena since last week, then moved on to two clips from Jimmy Akin, one on prayer to the dead, the other on predestination and election, and another "I think the Greek says" error from Mr. Akin. Then we looked at a quote from Greg Koukl's new book, Tactics. Here's the program.

“They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
for in thee we live and move and have our being.”

The conclusion of the Sola Fide Conference at Countryside Bible Church in Dallas.

Congratulations on the anniversary of the founding of your ministry. Your books, videos and website have been a great blessing to me as I continue to interact with my Catholic friends. I come from a Catholic background, so it's important to me to try to keep the lines of communication open with my family and friends.

I recently completed The Potter's Freedom, right after also reading Sproul's Chosen By God. I think you laid out the problems and discussion very well. I am convinced that the Reformed position is absolutely what the Bible teaches. I thank God and you for your witness to the great biblical truths which seem to be so maligned in our time, especially by supposed Christians.

--TR

I take my lunch break and sit at my computer and watch your debates. Masterful. Scholarly. Bold. Thank you for all the sacrifices you have made (which most people don't realize) to skillfully defend the Faith!

I'm a pastor and I consider you a mentor.

--DM

I have been listening for all 25 years. And have heard every MP3 show and every debate you have made available.. These truths have enriched my walk with God, and have helped me to understand so many of the rich orthodox Biblical doctrines.

A&O has helped me to defend the Christian faith from Mormonism, The Jehovah Witnesses, Islam, Catholicism, and Atheism.



Thank you, Dr. James White and Rich Pierce for all you have done for me.

--BC

I can certainly thank God for your ministry. I've grown up (I'm 26 and have been a Christian little more than half that time) in the Wesleyan denomination and so until April/May of this year have been more or less Arminian in my theology. For a few years before that time I had already felt dissatisfaction with Arminian soteriology, but just was not quite ready to call myself a Calvinist. However, through a number of factors, such as reading R.C. Sproul's What is Reformed Theology? and not the least through your ministry I have been thoroughly convinced that salvation is a work of God from start to finish and that it depends not "human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy...on whom he desires." I know my "conversion" to Reformed theology was itself a work of grace; nevertheless, this ministry has been an instrument of grace and I do thank God for your faithful service to Him.

--AJ

I was very thankful that Robert called to discuss his position that the TR is the pure version of the New Testament, and his view that the Westminster Confession of Faith requires us to believe this. It is one thing when I discuss the topic, it is another to listen to an exchange. Very useful. Here's the program.

The Ehrman debate will be a gold mine of quotes and topics for some time to come. Sadly, the really important portions of the debate have not been the focus of the initial flurry of commentary in the blogosphere, but that is to be expected. Instead, in this video I not only provide the first glimpse of the actual debate itself (from my trusty Casio camera!---which should only make you more thankful for the coming DVD!) but I also begin the process of bringing out the important elements of the discussion, this time on the topic of the tenacity of the text and the concept of conjectural emendation. Enjoy!

Picking up where Bible expert Bart Ehrman's New York Times bestseller Misquoting Jesus left off, Jesus, Interrupted addresses the larger issue of what the New Testament actually teaches—and it's not what most people think. Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed:

* The authors of the New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works

* The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later

* Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and John all represented fundamentally different religions

* Established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians

These are not idiosyncratic perspectives of just one modern scholar. As Ehrman skillfully demonstrates, they have been the standard and widespread views of critical scholars across a full spectrum of denominations and traditions. Why is it most people have never heard such things? This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus.

   For anyone who has listened to Ehrman's NT Intro lectures, this is nothing new, and though I am ordering the book, of course (and have added the few remaining Ehrman titles I did not already own to my ministry resource wish list just so I can check them all for citations while working on this book), I can tell you the line of argumentation Ehrman is going to follow. But does anyone else find the trajectory of his works over the past few years to be rather...interesting? For someone who was absolutely dead set against debating a theological topic, since theology and history are separate things, and Ehrman's conclusions about theology are just "his opinion," why are his last two titles so very...theological?

   I see a very clear progression here, and if Misquoting Jesus was a big seller amongst atheists and other enemies of the faith, Jesus Interrupted will look to build upon the same foundation to attack the historic Christian faith---all under the guise of unbiased "history" of course.

   I am not the only one, however, who has noticed that when Ehrman moves away from his strict area of expertise (textual criticism) into anything requiring exegesis, the results can be painful to observe. Lord willing, others will see the need to respond to this movement on Ehrman's part (aside from yours truly!) and as a result more sound, believing works will be provided to the people of God demonstrating why we must handle the Word aright. TBN Christianity is defenseless against the Ehrmans of the world, as is the anti-intellectual strain of conservative Christianity that refuses to seriously challenge believers to go deep into the Word and learn to handle it properly.

Do we have a reliable text of the New Testament? Are there places where the Bible misquotes Jesus? The short answer is, there is no way to tell. We don't have the originals, or the original copies, or copies of the copies. There are passages that scholars continue to debate: is this the original text or not? and there are some passages where we will never know the answer.

Alan Kurschner reviewed a KJV Only article yesterday, and the author (who wrote his first post without having listened to the entire debate, completed his review. The level of bias flies past the level of sheer bigotry, as seen in this amazing paragraph:

In fairness to Ehrman, even though I hate the work that he does, he has a higher standard for text that comes from God than White does. White acts like any of us should expect errors. I think it is White's Calvinism---God wanted errors in the text because of the greater good there would be (something like that). The reason Ehrman, it seems, is willing to trust Tacitus more than the Bible, is because Tacitus doesn't claim inspiration or preservation. The Bible does.

Well there you go! Remember that a few months ago I played clips from a KJV Only radio program and demonstrated that the KJV Onlyists hold Ehrman's position, right along with the Muslims: "We need a variantless text, no matter what the realities of history are." And here you see it again. Of course, one can only imagine what an encounter between one of these folks and Ehrman would look like, but that's another issue.

“James White hasn't done much to defend the Bible against the skeptic [Ehrman]. He's mainly attempted to give more uncertainty to people without a doubt in Scripture.”

“White reads Metzger to get his position”

“Whenever I listen to White talk on this subject, and I haven't listened to the debate all the way through yet, he sounds like an evidentialist to me too. I say that if he is a presuppositionalist, he should debate like it. I believe I know why he doesn't on this subject at least. He isn't a presuppositionalist on this issue. He didn't prepare for a presuppositional presentation on his side of the debate, so he didn't present one.”

“Expose the presuppositional nature of Ehrman’s insistence that we must possess the originals for inspiration to be true. This would include making sure it is clear that when Ehrman says “We don’t know what the NT said” he means “We do not have photographic reproductions of the originals.” I desired to make sure the listener would see that the NT manuscript tradition is more than sufficient to provide the original readings, even in the toughest of variants.”

“Present a strong case for the providential preservation of the text through the explosion of early manuscripts and the lack of editorial “control” in contrast with the Islamic theory of preservation. Given that the majority of attacks upon the NT today come from those alleging some kind of controlled editing of the text, this element is vital.”

“What White does, according to McDurmon, and I've yet to hear it (but will), is argue the exact same way that Ehrman does. Ironic, huh?”

“McDurmon comes across as very objective”

"White goes to his speculation about the text to say that there's enough evidence in the manuscripts to support Christian beliefs and enough confidence in Scripture."

“White says that the best thing that comes out of this debate is that Ehrman is exposed as the skeptic that he is. Well, did anyone really doubt the skepticism of Ehrman?”

“I'm thinking that the best material that I'll get out of this debate will be the content in opposition to White. I already knew that Ehrman was a fraud, having read two of his books. Now we'll see about White.”

   In an exercise of which 20-something year olds can say the darndest things, my worldview sustained a heavy blow. For a reason which I cannot expound upon because it is just too scholastic for me, my class was asked to shout out whatever ideas come to mind when thinking about a Republican or a Democrat. You know, the typical thing you think of when you think of a Republican. What we came up with for Republicans is, and I quote, “Truck-driving, confederate flag waving, racist, sexist backwoods hicks.” The cherry on top is that they are also homophobes who support the death penalty, but not abortion!

   It was almost astonishing, the reaction to the revelation that Republicans prefer to kill criminals and not babies. At first I was astonished, and then I was nervous. “Can you believe it?” One girl asked. “They are such hypocrites. Let’s kill people not fetuses!” I giggled, albeit nervously, before I was able to try to respond.

   This girl and I are operating on such opposing worldviews that we can look at one situation and get two wildly different conclusions. But, really, in her defense, by what standard could she possibly measure what is right or wrong other than whatever she decides to think? I attempted to point out that over and over in the Old Testament, God’s law put certain criminals to death, and among those laws is Exodus 21:23, which requires that someone who causes a child to be miscarried must pay “life for life.” It is upon this basis that the “conservative” view stems from. Although I am left to wonder, wouldn’t simple logic tell us that it is the innocent—and not those found guilty—that should be protected? I guess I’ll just have to leave that battle for another day.

   Next I was informed that abortion rates skyrocket during Republican presidencies because conservatives do not support selling birth control at gas stations, grocery stores, and for free in your high school’s nurses office! Unfortunately for my dear liberal comrade, this is a myth that was repeated so often by nutcases for the past five years that it was forced to be debunked over and over and over and over and over again. At this point, its just willful mud-slinging to even assert such ridiculousness, as even Planned Parenthood affiliates have looked into the claim and found it to be false, even crediting Republican presidents for lowering abortion rates.

His greatest joy was to visit Marian shrines, to pray to Mary and with Mary, to imitate her virtues, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and of the Church. Through profound theological studies, he came to understand even better the mission of Mary in cooperation with the Trinity for the salvation of the human race and the sanctification of the Church. He lived his religious vows in the imitation of Mary. He held that, for everyone to be completely of God, as Mary had been, it was necessary to become her slaves, or better, slaves of God in Mary; for this reason he established the Congregation of the Slaves of Mary for the greater glory of the Trinity, in praise of the Virgin, in the service of the poor. For him, to be a slave of Mary meant belonging totally to her: "Totus tuus" in order to unite oneself more intimately to Christ and in Him through the Spirit, to the Father.

In the end, despite all of the helpful information and engaging points, the debate proved little beside the limitations of evidentialist apologetics. If manuscript evidence forms the basis of our trust in the veracity of Scripture, then we cannot conclude veracity one way or the other. Without the prior existence of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, revelation in any form cannot exist.

The divine truth of the sufficiency of Scripture is based firmly upon the bedrock of the nature of Scripture and God's sovereign rulership over His creation. That is to say that scriptural sufficiency is not a doctrine unto itself that can be separated from the rest of revelation. It is the necessary result of sound beliefs concerning God and His purposes. To believe what the Bible teaches about God, the gospel, the church, and the Scriptures, is to believe in Scriptural sufficiency, the ability of the Bible to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, its ability to equip the man of God for every good work God by His Spirit would call him to perform. Christ's Church hears in the words of Scripture the voice of her Master (pp. 19-20).

We can consider New Testament textual evidence to be among those "many other incomparable excellencies," but yet must admit that the persuasion of its veracity comes not from that evidence, but from the Holy Spirit. Ehrman, despite whatever errors he may commit, knows at least this much, and Evangelicals should acknowledge it.

I wrote the following article for the American Vision website. It is the first of two replies to Joel McDurmon's comments on the debate, likewise posted on AV. Mr. McDurmon will be joining me on the DL tomorrow.