Exposed: The Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#1
I have recently taken up to expose the underlying theories behind the Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace.


In my recent video production, I bring to light, what Bart Erhman, James White and Daniel Wallace does not want us know. Though outwardly it may appear that they are embarking on a similar path to that of the Renaissance scholars, yet they take us off the beaten path, and introduce a method that seems to be clairvoyant in nature. I have produced a very engaging after effects template that documents the historical position of this field of investigation, and then show these scholars true hand. this is all wrapped up in under 12 minutes....


Sit back and enjoy and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Link to Video Argument: https://youtu.be/4jm7L-_SqUY

Channel Page for all arguments: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#2
I have recently taken up to expose the underlying theories behind the Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace.


In my recent video production, I bring to light, what Bart Erhman, James White and Daniel Wallace does not want us know. Though outwardly it may appear that they are embarking on a similar path to that of the Renaissance scholars, yet they take us off the beaten path, and introduce a method that seems to be clairvoyant in nature. I have produced a very engaging after effects template that documents the historical position of this field of investigation, and then show these scholars true hand. this is all wrapped up in under 12 minutes....


Sit back and enjoy and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Link to Video Argument: https://youtu.be/4jm7L-_SqUY

Channel Page for all arguments: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
I'm afraid you prove nothing other than you know how to make cartoon videos. I am not a fan of Erhman and I don't know much about White but I do indeed know a whole lot about Daniel Wallace and he is one of the most pre-eminent Greek Scholars of our day. You on the other hand have no credibility whatsoever with me so I have to say I don't accept any of your YouTube Productions as factual. I do not consider Irenaeus and Tertullian apostles, but only early church fathers, and as such they may give us a window into the scriptures that existed in their day but there were earlier ECFs that documented our current Canon. The fact that we as a Christian Community do not have any autographs may be problematic to some but to myself I trust that God has been in control of his inspired word from the very beginning and has not let it become as corrupted as some people claim, without any evidence I might add.
The majority of all manuscripts today are in agreement at least 95% overall and as such I find no reason whatsoever to equivocate or argue about 5% of linguistic misunderstanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#3
I do appreciate your passion, but I think you may missing the point of the argument.

These videos are actually defending the scriptures that have come down from the apostolic churches.

You are aware that many of the apostolic Greek churches founded by Paul still exist today, the church of Alexandria that was established by St Mark, the Church of Smyrna which St John writes about in Revelation are all still around. The Greek church of Antioch is still around

So please ask your precious Daniel Wallace why he reject the texts that have come down from these apostolic churches. Why does he reject Paul as the author of Hebrews. Are you saying the churches accepted anonymous texts? The renaissance scholars rejected these apocryphal texts which Daniel Wallace Claim as the best and earliest.

The purpose of these videos is to educate and document the historical position of the apostolic churches.

though I understand your passion, you haven't provided any empirical data to counter my arguments, and it seems your aren't familiar with Daniel Wallace views on the texts that have come through the apostolic churches, because he views them as all corrupt, which is why he goes to apocryphal texts as a basis for not using the Historical Texts of the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Ethiopian.

God did preserve the scriptures, and they have been preserved through these churches that have come down to us today.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#4
What I want everyone to understand is modern scholarship view of Textual Criticism is actually discrediting our scriptures, not defending them. The Muslims use these scholars to support their attacks on the New Testament. James White is their hero.

This is why everyone thinks the bible is a book of fairytales.

I am defending the historical texts that have come through the churches founded by the apostles.

But Bart Erhman, James White and Daniel Wallace say all these Church Texts are corrupt, which is why they use an alternative set of documents that can't be shown to ever been used by the church.

We only use money that comes from banking institutions, in the same way we only use texts that can be showed to have come from the historic apostolic churches. What Bart, James and Daniel Say, is we reject all the bank money, for money we don't know where it comes from. But are we defending this same practice for the text of the New Testament?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#5
James White reviewed your video... and it took him all of a couple of minutes to point out serious errors in it. I would recommend doing some research... with unbiased sources.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#6
Really, well this is the third video in my series, and they have been out the last couple of months. My YouTube channel is set to public, he is more than welcome to enter into a discussion with me. I have not received any communication from James White at all.

I notice you point to serious errors in my research, but you haven't provided any empirical data that refutes the testimony of Tertullian and Irenaus. Ask James white, why does he reject the texts of the apostolic churches for texts of unknown provenance, texts that can't be shown to have ever been used by the apostolic churches.

Please have james show the legal chain of custody to these documents he asserts to be the best and earliest?

How are these texts any different from the texts promoted by Marcion, or the valentians.

How does James white Textual Criticism rule out the texts from the Gnostics? These Gnostics texts are much earlier than his.

What apostolic churches ever used the Texts of Vaticanus and Sinaticus prior to 1881. Who wrote these texts, what apostolic churches were they read in?

While we are on the subject of unknown, please ask James White to provide the name, locatation and time period of these scribes to have been adding to all the known texts of the apostolic churches without any bishop or congregation noticing.

Ireneus, Tertuallian and caius were aware of the texts of the gnostics, and the texts of marcion where he was removing scriptures from the gospels and the letter of paul.

Please have him respond, I am waiting for his rebuttal
 
Last edited:
S

StanJ

Guest
#7
I do appreciate your passion, but I think you may missing the point of the argument.

These videos are actually defending the scriptures that have come down from the apostolic churches.

You are aware that many of the apostolic Greek churches founded by Paul still exist today, the church of Alexandria that was established by St Mark, the Church of Smyrna which St John writes about in Revelation are all still around. The Greek church of Antioch is still around

So please ask your precious Daniel Wallace why he reject the texts that have come down from these apostolic churches. Why does he reject Paul as the author of Hebrews. Are you saying the churches accepted anonymous texts? The renaissance scholars rejected these apocryphal texts which Daniel Wallace Claim as the best and earliest.

The purpose of these videos is to educate and document the historical position of the apostolic churches.

though I understand your passion, you haven't provided any empirical data to counter my arguments, and it seems your aren't familiar with Daniel Wallace views on the texts that have come through the apostolic churches, because he views them as all corrupt, which is why he goes to apocryphal texts as a basis for not using the Historical Texts of the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Ethiopian.

God did preserve the scriptures, and they have been preserved through these churches that have come down to us today.
If I'm missing your point it's because you failed to make one, but simply made uncorroborated assertions. In any argument one first has to establish the facts then show how those facts have been altered. You have done neither.

Jesus never instructed any of the Apostles to establish their own church, he instructed them to add to his church. There's only one Church and its head is Jesus. There is no such thing as an Apostolic Church in scripture.
What Jesus does in Revelation is address his message to the angel of each church not to the actual Church. The following link may help you to understand the distinction.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Rev/Seven-Messages

Paul was not the author of Hebrews, Luke was, and John the Beloved was not the author of John, Lazarus was. If you really want to learn contextualization then you have to be willing to learn and not go into it with a predispositional bias.
The only traditions we should be following as Christians are there traditions that are taught in the scriptures themselves.

None of your videos have provided any empirical evidence either just a whole lot of cartoons and assertions not corroborated by anything. Where did you acquire your credentials and what exactly are they?
The Canon of scripture that is commonly accepted today has its origins in Hebrew and Greek, nothing else. I have no idea what you refer to by ' apocryphal texts'? You haven't even properly documented what these men have actually done or not done.

Let me ask you a simple question... Are you an advocate of the textus receptus?
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#8
James White reviewed your video... and it took him all of a couple of minutes to point out serious errors in it. I would recommend doing some research... with unbiased sources.
I think it goes without saying that his video has more than a few serious errors in it but for the most part it's simply assertions with no basis in reality or corroboration of such.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#9
I think it goes without saying that his video has more than a few serious errors in it but for the most part it's simply assertions with no basis in reality or corroboration of such.
Stan,

Is this the type of scholarship you bring to a discussion board; where is your empirical data refuting the testimony of these fathers. I bring the testimony of the bishop of Lyons from the Second Century, Tertullian another second century witness from North Africa saying the same thing in regards to the text of the New Testament. This would hold up in any court of law, but your statements have no empirical data behind them.

I have asked James white simple questions. Please show the chain of custody for these textual witnesses. This is standard procedure in any court of law. But the fact of the matter is James White, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman rejects these documents when they don't agree with their positions.

So not only are the texts of the apostolic church texts corrupt, but they reject their own texts when it goes against their views.

Ask James, will he accept the finding of PS46 that the oldest collection of Pauls lettesr has the letter to the Hebrews, which then shows paul as the author.

Stan if your going to make statements please provide empirical data to support your statements.

Please show me in the quotations I provide from witnesses who actually have names and locations and time periods, where in the statements of Ireaneus and Tertullian were they wrong in showing that only texts that have a legal chain of custody to the apostles and commonly received by the apostolic churches were to be counted as the text of the New Testament.

Now if they are wrong, then we are missing about a 100 gospel publications that the gnostics claimed were from the apostles. Yet the Gnostics could not demonstrate the legal chain of custody for those texts for no apostolic church ever received those texts.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#10
Stan,

Is this the type of scholarship you bring to a discussion board; where is your empirical data refuting the testimony of these fathers. I bring the testimony of the bishop of Lyons from the Second Century, Tertullian another second century witness from North Africa saying the same thing in regards to the text of the New Testament. This would hold up in any court of law, but your statements have no empirical data behind them.

I have asked James white simple questions. Please show the chain of custody for these textual witnesses. This is standard procedure in any court of law. But the fact of the matter is James White, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman rejects these documents when they don't agree with their positions.

So not only are the texts of the apostolic church texts corrupt, but they reject their own texts when it goes against their views.

Ask James, will he accept the finding of PS46 that the oldest collection of Pauls lettesr has the letter to the Hebrews, which then shows paul as the author.

Stan if your going to make statements please provide empirical data to support your statements.

Please show me in the quotations I provide from witnesses who actually have names and locations and time periods, where in the statements of Ireaneus and Tertullian were they wrong in showing that only texts that have a legal chain of custody to the apostles and commonly received by the apostolic churches were to be counted as the text of the New Testament.

Now if they are wrong, then we are missing about a 100 gospel publications that the gnostics claimed were from the apostles. Yet the Gnostics could not demonstrate the legal chain of custody for those texts for no apostolic church ever received those texts.
I'm not questioning James White scholarship, I'm questioning yours. You have provided no evidence of your credentials and you have provided no starting point as to what James White believes and how you discredit him. I am NOT a scholar but I was also not born yesterday.
As far as the author of Hebrews is concerned I suggest you read David L. Allen's book about the issue. It is quite obvious to anyone with an open mind that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and would not have written a letter such as Hebrews that was so unlike his other letters where he always introduced himself.

As far as legal chain-of-custody is concerned you do realize that there are no autographs in existence today so what exactly are you purporting? You do realize that Ireaneus & Tertullian were not around during the time of the Apostles and could not possibly provide chain of custody evidence?

As far as empirical data is concerned I would suggest you practice what you preach.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#11
I'm not questioning James White scholarship, I'm questioning yours. You have provided no evidence of your credentials and you have provided no starting point as to what James White believes and how you discredit him. I am NOT a scholar but I was also not born yesterday.
As far as the author of Hebrews is concerned I suggest you read David L. Allen's book about the issue. It is quite obvious to anyone with an open mind that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and would not have written a letter such as Hebrews that was so unlike his other letters where he always introduced himself.

As far as legal chain-of-custody is concerned you do realize that there are no autographs in existence today so what exactly are you purporting? You do realize that Ireaneus & Tertullian were not around during the time of the Apostles and could not possibly provide chain of custody evidence?

As far as empirical data is concerned I would suggest you practice what you preach.
Well I have a Masters in Statistics, but a scholar is just a lawyer arguing their position. Can't I just have a library card like everyone else and read like a good student. Do I really need to have a degree in divinity to argue the positions of the historical church fathers.

You are attacking my creditials, that is commonly known as an argument from authority which is a well known.

I am quoting church documents, councils, the statements from the church of England, the Churches of North Africa.

OJ Simpson lawyers had the best creditials, but was he really innocent.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#12
Well I have a Masters in Statistics, but a scholar is just a lawyer arguing their position. Can't I just have a library card like everyone else and read like a good student. Do I really need to have a degree in divinity to argue the positions of the historical church fathers.

You are attacking my creditials, that is commonly known as an argument from authority which is a well known.

I am quoting church documents, councils, the statements from the church of England, the Churches of North Africa.

OJ Simpson lawyers had the best creditials, but was he really innocent.
I'm afraid all this is, is avoidance, and I'm sure you know it. If you want to dispute and disprove scholars then you actually have to be able to do so in a scholarly way which means you have to know as much if not more than the scholars you're trying to refute. That is obviously not the case. I'm not attacking your credentials because you don't have any.
Church of England documents are not the Bible just as the traditions of the COE are not the Bible.
Are you also going to advicate that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible translation because it was translated by 50 COE clergy?
You're not very clear as to exactly what the issues are nor are you clear about how you are refuting these scholars.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#13
Well I am documenting the historical position of the apostolic churches. Your so called scholars have not even attempted to meet me on the battle field.

I support the textual scholarship of Erasmus of Rotterdam, Robert Stehphanus, Cardinal Ximenez of Toledo, Thedore Beza, even Jerome on his vulgate because he also had a criterion we can examine. These scholars boast impeccable credentials,. If we want to have an examination on the text of the New Testament, then our source criteria needs to be text received and read in apostolic churches...not texts that were obviously thrown out, and can't even be shown to be church texts.

Even though you are not familiar with the argument, James white, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman are well aware of these historical positions. They are very familiar with the arguments of Ireneus and Tertullian. Ireneus bishop Polycarp was appointed by the apostles, to the church of Smyrna, obviously he was ignorant...yet your 20th century scholars 2000 years later knows better than the people that were actually there.

Do you hear yourself? lol
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#14
Well I am documenting the historical position of the apostolic churches. Your so called scholars have not even attempted to meet me on the battle field.

I support the textual scholarship of Erasmus of Rotterdam, Robert Stehphanus, Cardinal Ximenez of Toledo, Thedore Beza, even Jerome on his vulgate because he also had a criterion we can examine. These scholars boast impeccable credentials,. If we want to have an examination on the text of the New Testament, then our source criteria needs to be text received and read in apostolic churches...not texts that were obviously thrown out, and can't even be shown to be church texts.

Even though you are not familiar with the argument, James white, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman are well aware of these historical positions. They are very familiar with the arguments of Ireneus and Tertullian. Ireneus bishop Polycarp was appointed by the apostles, to the church of Smyrna, obviously he was ignorant...yet your 20th century scholars 2000 years later knows better than the people that were actually there.

Do you hear yourself? lol
Well then go argue with them if they know what you're talking about because I sure don't. Given your style so far I doubt very much you would have much success arguing with any of them. I doubt very much they have any idea that you're on an imaginary battlefield waiting for them. Meanwhile this is a discussion forum so either make a point that can be discussed or move along.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#15
Then if you don't understand the issues, why are you responding to this debate.

My point has always been, why are we rejecting the texts received through the historical apostolic churches, for texts of unknown provenance, texts that can't be shown to ever been used by the apostolic churches.

I would think you would have more respect for the founding apostolic churches and the fathers of the church defending the text of the New Testament.

If you support that all the Greek, Aramiac, Ethiopian, Latin, and Egyptian church texts are corrupt and we need to use texts that can't even be shown to be texts used in the apostolic churches. Then I'm fine with your assertion.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#16
Then if you don't understand the issues, why are you responding to this debate.

My point has always been, why are we rejecting the texts received through the historical apostolic churches, for texts of unknown provenance, texts that can't be shown to ever been used by the apostolic churches.

I would think you would have more respect for the founding apostolic churches and the fathers of the church defending the text of the New Testament.

If you support that all the Greek, Aramiac, Ethiopian, Latin, and Egyptian church texts are corrupt and we need to use texts that can't even be shown to be texts used in the apostolic churches. Then I'm fine with your assertion.
There is no debate... You posted a link to YouTube videos that provides no fact or corroboration.

That's not a point that's an assertion with no corroboration.

There were no founding Apostolic churches and I have as much respect for the ECFs as is warranted.

I clearly said that there are only two languages from scripture that I support, that being Greek and Hebrew. What the early church may have translated into other versions such as Latin etc... is irrelevant and definitely not acceptable as the inspired word of God.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#17
So the bible is wrong, so there we so church of Antioch, no church of Rome, no churches of Asia Minor like Smyrna, the apostles never founded the churches, there were no greek churches. Why do we have churches if no one founded them. I guess the bible is wrong.

I guess the apostles didn't listen to Jesus. I guess paul didn't set up any churches either.

Dude, you crack me up.

I have quotes that you ignore in my documentation.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God.
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
#18
Then if you don't understand the issues, why are you responding to this debate.

My point has always been, why are we rejecting the texts received through the historical apostolic churches, for texts of unknown provenance, texts that can't be shown to ever been used by the apostolic churches.

I would think you would have more respect for the founding apostolic churches and the fathers of the church defending the text of the New Testament.

If you support that all the Greek, Aramiac, Ethiopian, Latin, and Egyptian church texts are corrupt and we need to use texts that can't even be shown to be texts used in the apostolic churches. Then I'm fine with your assertion.
I dont think he does have any respect for anyone but himself to be honest calvin. The reason why i say that is because i too have constantly said to Stan to substantate claims and yet he avoids ducks runs away and then makes accusations.

Though i disagree with your position on this thread and side with Stan on it im sympathetic and feel your pain of ambigious claims with no plausible reasons and evidence cited whatsoever.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#20
So the bible is wrong, so there we so church of Antioch, no church of Rome, no churches of Asia Minor like Smyrna, the apostles never founded the churches, there were no greek churches. Why do we have churches if no one founded them. I guess the bible is wrong.

I guess the apostles didn't listen to Jesus. I guess paul didn't set up any churches either.

Dude, you crack me up.

I have quotes that you ignore in my documentation.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God.
No, you are wrong. As I showed you by giving you the link, Revelation doesn't refer to the churches IT addresses the angel of the churches and as such is meant for any condition of any church that is identified. The church was founded on the confession of Peter who identified Jesus as the savior of mankind. There is only one Church of which Christ is the head. That is what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say that there are different Apostolic churches and that we must follow their ancient traditions.

As to how many congregations Paul started it is not clear. It could be 14 or up to 20 but that all depends on whether or not you know how to read the scripturesand don't make assumptions.The reality is Jesus started the churchand he is the head of it.

All I heard in your videos where you making assertions not showing any documentation. now if you have some point to make and some documentation to show then do so but stop trying to justify you're opining as factual.