Posted by: Nick Norelli | January 29, 2008

Ehrman-White Debate in January

James White just announced on his Dividing Line webcast that in January he will be debating Bart Ehrman on the topic of textual criticism (and how it pertains to inspiration I think, I was only half-listening).  I’ll update this post with a link to the radio program as soon as its available. 

B”H

Update I: Details here.

Update II: I had originally said July when the debate is actually next January.  I told you I was only half-listening.  The error has been corrected.

Update III: Here’s the audio of today’s Dividing Line.

Posted in Debates

« Now that’s just Gross
Bultmann on Paul’s Conception of Human Freedom »

Responses

Wow, White’s gonna get it handed to him. That sucks that I have to wait so long to hear it.

If you listen to the Davinci Discussion at SEBTS Ehrman gives it to Geisler when Geisler kind of attacks Hays for his view on inerrancy. After Geisler responds back to Ehrman he just sounds like and angry, irrelevant fundamentalist. My favorite part is when Geisler is telling the crowd to read his book on something to see how he answers certain objections or questions and Ehrman responds by saying he actually used to read and use Geisler’s book(s) when he was a young fundamentalists. I laughed out loud!

What I thought was funny was that White says “Clearly Ehrman is moving beyond his field of study (textual criticism) with a title such as this. ”

What, and this is somehow your field of study?! What exactly is your field of study besides rhetoric and debating?

Thanks for drawing my attention to this but I have to say I’m not rooting for White.

Blessings,
Bryan

By: Bryan L on January 29, 2008
at 2:05 pm

Yo! I was thinkning about writing a post asking if White had a field of expertise. ;)

By: Nick Norelli on January 29, 2008
at 2:08 pm

BTW, do you know where I can find the audio to that SEBTS DaVinci discussion?

By: Nick Norelli on January 29, 2008
at 2:10 pm

There was a link on the SEBST website but it doesn’t appear to be working right anymore (it only plays like 10 seconds). If no one else has a link I will email it to you when I get home later.

Truthfully the Davinci Code discussion is boring and uninteresting but the back and forth stuff on inerrancy and women in ministry is entertaining.

By: Bryan L on January 29, 2008
at 2:32 pm

Wow, White’s gonna get it handed to him. That sucks that I have to wait so long to hear it.

Sorry to hear you are so negative about James White, Bryan. Handed to him, huh. Please.

With your comments, you clearly know nothing about James’ ministry, or you are just being (or at least sounding like) an angry fundy.

By: Jeff on January 29, 2008
at 4:10 pm

Jeff,

You probably could answer my question. What exactly is James’ field of expertise? I’ve never been clear on that.

By: Nick Norelli on January 29, 2008
at 4:17 pm

http://www.aomin.org/articles/bio.html

By: m burke on January 29, 2008
at 4:26 pm

Sorry to hear you’re so positive about James White. That must suck.

Bryan the Angry Fundie. How funny. LOL

By: Bryan L on January 29, 2008
at 4:51 pm

Nick,
I found another link.
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/audio/davinci_panel.mp3

Blessings,
Bryan

By: Bryan L on January 29, 2008
at 7:44 pm

I agree with you all that James White seems more interesting in winning than in being authentic. But that’s just my guess.

By: Brian on January 29, 2008
at 11:42 pm

You probably could answer my question. What exactly is James’ field of expertise? I’ve never been clear on that.

This is actually an interesting question Nick and I thought about it a couple of times throughout the day and night.

Expert is somewhat a relative term to who is using it.

I’m not sure James would claim to be an expert in any one issue. If I had a question on a number of things (cults, apologetics, textual issues, etc.) I would feel very comfortable asking James a question on a number of issue, and be confident he has done his homework (both positive and negative) and be ok with the answer given.

If you read his blog, you’ll get an idea of what James is very comfortable addressing. I really do not believe he would write or speak publically on an issue he has not done adequate research.

By: Jeff on January 30, 2008
at 10:22 am

Jeff,

Thanks. I appreciate your answer, all the more because you know him personally. I would assume that since he has degrees in apologetics then it could be said that that was his ‘area of expertise’ (or ‘field of study’), much in the same way we’d say that Ehrman’s ‘area of expertise’ (or ‘field of study’ ;) is textual criticism. Of course this doesn’t mean that each of them is not qualified to speak/write on topics outside of their field of training.

So when James says that: “Clearly Ehrman is moving beyond his field of study (textual criticism)…” one gets the impression that he’s somehow saying that Ehrman isn’t qualified to write on theodicy. This might not be what he means but it’s hard to take it differently. Ehrman could similarly comment that White is “clearly moving beyond his field of study (apologetics)” by attempting to debate textual criticism and inspiration and have just as much of a point.

I know you disagree with Ehrman on theodicy, but do you think that he’s at least done his homework on the issue?

By: Nick Norelli on January 30, 2008
at 12:03 pm

To the question concerning Ehrman doing his homework on theodicy-

I guess we’ll find out once his books released. I plan to read it, but even a scan of the index could indicate just how much homework he’s done. Theodicy is a theological and philosophical topic, and if Ehrman has addressed the works of recent philosophers like Peter Van Inwagen, Eleonore Stump, Richard Swinburne (all who have written in depth and rigorous books on the issue), as well as scholars working in fields closer to Ehrman’s, such as NT Wright, then one could probably conclude that Ehrman has done his homework.

Conversely, if Ehrman hasn’t, than I question just how potent his arguments will be on the topic.

By: DanKylander on January 30, 2008
at 11:09 pm

It is not a matter of qualification, but it is (or at least seems to me) a matter of moving from ones speciality.

While James’ field of study is apologetics; this is not in a vacume as you well know. It is not meta-apologetics, but his field is putting apologetics into practice in various areas of study…one of them certainly being texual criticism.

James certainly knows this subject well. He has written two books on the issue (one very specific) and has dealt with the issue (in a series) on the DL (see mid-Feb. 2007 of the blog). Again, if I had a question on this issue, James (INHO) would be a reliable source.

By: Jeff on January 31, 2008
at 8:39 am

[...] February 5, 2008 at 5:34 pm (Uncategorized) A few days ago I was asked what I think James White’s “field of expertise.” I will not repeat my response, you can read it here. [...]

By: James White and the Nature of Apologetics « Countercult Apologetics on February 5, 2008
at 12:35 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories