We are reviewing and responding to the Wallace/Ehrman debate from 10/1, including a review of my cross-examination period from my debate with Ehrman as well, all with a focus upon the fact that for Ehrman, for the New Testament to be “trustworthy,” we would have to possess the originals. Period. His skepticism is, in fact, completely radical and outside the historic mainstream of historical and textual investigation.
We have started two series of debate reviews/responses over the course of the last two Dividing Lines, neither of which got blogged! Of course, I am not the only person with access to the blog, so, when I go jetting off out of town or just forget because I’m buried, someone could do this, but hey…we must all be very busy! [wry grin].
We are reviewing and responding to the Wallace/Ehrman debate from 10/1, including a review of my cross-examination period from my debate with Ehrman as well, all with a focus upon the fact that for Ehrman, for the New Testament to be “trustworthy,” we would have to possess the originals. Period. His skepticism is, in fact, completely radical and outside the historic mainstream of historical and textual investigation.
