Loading...Now that my debate with Matthew Firth over the contradictions in the Gospels has ended, I would like to know your reactions. Any reactions are fine. There is the obvious question of which side you found more convincing, but also the less obvious question of why that is. What about the argument, or counter-argument, was compelling or not compelling?
Part of the problem, of course, is that virtually everyone listening in on the debate already had a pretty firm idea of what they think about the issues. And because of “confirmation bias” we tend to agree with what we already think, and anyone who says it is obviously right! (Hence the problem with most viewers of both FOX and MSNBC.) But for my money, the most interesting responses come from people who have changed their minds. Still, in all the public debates I’ve had, in front of many thousands of people, I almost never have heard of anyone changing their mind.
So what’s the point? I often ask myself that! And often I ask it while I’m smack in the middle of a debate. My opponent will be arguing something that I think is both obviously and demonstrably false, or misleading, or hopelessly slanted beyond all recognition, and I will see people nodding their heads in agreement (the same people who are shooting darts at me with my eyes when I’m doing the talking) and I start writing notes to myself on my legal pad: “Why am I doing this to myself????”
BUT. There sometimes are people sitting on the fence. People who are open to either view, and want to know what to think.
And sometimes there are even people with one view willing to consider carefully the other – not in order to debunk it, but genuinely to consider changing their minds because they think that’s where the evidence leads.
And sometimes you can plant a seed in rather unwilling soil, and over a period of time, it can grow into a beautiful bush and blossom.
I resonate with people who are willing to change their minds that’s what I did and it changed my life. When I was in college, I would have completely agreed with everything Matthew said in our debate. But a little later, in graduate school, I opened up to the possibility that I might be wrong. I decided to look at the evidence without prejudging the issue. Are there inconsistencies in the Bible or not? I looked and looked and thought and thought and agonized and agonized and…. Well, you pretty much know the rest.
I suppose I do these debates with conservative evangelicals because I hope there is someone else out there like me, willing to change her or his mind.
But I never do them thinking I’ll change my opponent’s mind. In my experience, there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing, you can do to change the opponent’s mind. If what matters is defending the “truth,” then any alternative view has to be rejected, destroyed, and even mocked. The debaters I like very much the least are the ones who mock. I could, obviously, name names. But there are a couple of people I simply won’t debate. I don’t think mockery is a form of intellectual inquiry or exchange.
Apart from all that – what did you think of the idea of a blog debate and the way it was set up? Was it worth doing in your view? Should there be others?
The event was put on as a kind of fund-raiser, and I’m happy to say that we brought in some significant funds. The two fellows behind (different aspects) of the whole endeavor were Timothy Cottingham and Nathan Gordon. From their end they raised around $1200 in outside money; internally, the blog received something like $1500-2000 in direct contributions (it’s hard to tell because some of the donations received at the time were not earmarked). So we’re talking about several thousand dollars, all told. That seems to make the effort worth it!
In short: in a comment on this post let me know what you think t – what you thought of the idea of the debate, the way it was set up, the way it went, the arguments you found convincing or not, your general take on the whole thing, and whether it might be worth doing again on some other topic.
Civil debate is important. I think the written debate format is good because it gives time for each side to formulate their best response. Also, the 1000-1500 word limit is good for forcing each side to give their best arguments only in a concise way. I hope you do another debate like this with someone else on a different topic in the future!
Hi Bart,
Newish member here. I think the blog debate format has value, though it can get a bit too adversarial (by which I guess I really mean not dispassionate enough) in nature.
FWIW, after 30+ years I moved away from a fairly rigid biblical literalist view to seeing the Bible as a rich literary debate full of contradiction and complexity. Believe it or not, this has actually strengthened my faith rather than weakened it.
I appreciate the work you do here. Keep digging 🙂
Rob
Thanks for doing the debate, it was worth it.
My thought on the debate – Rev Firth did not really face up to the obvious contradictions, and you politely restrained your frustration. He either resorted to a complicated Greek argument which was technical and unconvincing, or simply allowed himself to assume that Luke left out passages which would have eliminated the apparent contradiction.
In terms of format I liked the back and forth, with your comments side by side in the test. There was a bit of a gap sometimes between posts, but as I guess you both have day jobs that is to be expected.
With regard to the bigger rationale for your work, it is very, very much appreciated.
You said “When I was in college, I would have completely agreed with everything Matthew said in our debate. But a little later, in graduate school, I opened up to the possibility that I might be wrong. I decided to look at the evidence without prejudging the issue. Are there inconsistencies in the Bible or not? I looked and looked and thought and thought and agonized and agonized and…. Well, you pretty much know the rest.”
I, and probably many of us, made the same journey and are most grateful for your guidance. I particularly appreciate the fact that you are not an anti-Christian polemicist in the Dawkins way (although some christians mistakenly think of you like this) but instead are keen that everyone knows what, historically, we do and do not know, and can separate that from any faith based assumptions,
I find that your work and the questions you debate help me to understand and internalise these issues, and to share them with others. It would be nice to see some response from some of those you debate with. It is a shame to watch other YouTube clips of some of your famous debaters – successfully challenged by you – who in their natural environment revert to type and talk or preach stuff as if they had never heard any reason to think twice about any of it.
Agree with much of what you say. Only differ in one aspect: I in fact admire Dawkins’ courage. The Bart approach is good, but if at least SOMEONE doesn’t stand up to the churches we will never end the abuse – individual, of women and children; and legislative, where churches often retard progress for human rights. See the latest expose of the Catholic church in Poland (youtube) and (I think) admire the courage of those who have stood up and said NO MORE!
Enjoyed the debate. Glad you raised money for a good cause. Was open to having my mind changed, but was disappointed by Matthew Firth. The closest he came was with Jairus’ daughter, because he argued it depends how you read the Greek – which I don`t know enough about.
A possible debate topic might be the `minimal facts` argument for the Resurrection, because apologists restrict themselves to 4-5 `facts to make their case. They would have to present their case first.
Just one person’s opinion, but I hate these kinds of debates. They are a waste of time and intellect. I hope your right that these debates can plant seeds in others. While it’s true that you abandoned your fundamentalist beliefs, that was part of an extended course of graduate studies.
At least they raised some money for suffering people, ‘though; I can’t argue with that.
As an agriculturist, I love your comment in today’s post: “And sometimes you can plant a seed in rather unwilling soil, and over a period of time, it can grow into a beautiful bush and blossom.” … I also sport a bumper sticker on my pickup “NATURE is my Church.” … My preference is to watch you give solo (video) presentations like one you presented to a friendly audience in Berkeley several years ago. Evidently, I don’t have time to carefully read debates on the blog. I’m still poking around through the blog’s archives to read posts you made in 2014!
I found the debate interesting, useful and engaging. I totally thought it was worth it – especially as the funds raised go to charity.
I tend to follow the evidence and the best arguments, so within my lifetime I’ve changed my mind over contradictions. When I first started out in my faith I was taught the bible was inerrant and that for every contradiction there was a complicated yet plausible answer. I was only 16 at the time, so I took them at their word. I also accepted the scholarly consensus over the dating of the gospels.
As I grew older and wiser, I started investigating the evidence and the arguments more closely and making my own mind up over these matters. Now I accept contradictions but reject the late dating of the gospels – not because I belong to any ideological wing of the Church, just that’s where the best evidence and arguments have led me.
Your arguments (Bart) were more convincing, and whilst they affirmed my pre-existing position, I still found them valuable and useful to read. Matthew’s arguments were less convincing, but they were argued well and thoroughly researched. I still found them useful and interesting to read – even though they didn’t take me over the line.
I did not enjoy the blog debate. I applaud Rev. Firth’s willingness to participate, especially on your turf, but I found his arguments too faith based rather than fact based. (Yes my bias is showing.) It appeared to me he went to extraordinary lengths to explain away what appear to non-believers as contradictions. Thus the debate seemed more about faith versus unbelief, an un-winnable argument. A debate with another textual critic who may have a differing view than yourself about particular passages might be more interesting, especially if there is no faith involved, but I doubt it. I much prefer yesterday’s post titled “When did Jesus become sinless?” and look forward to the next couple of those. Kudos for giving it a try though. I know you are always looking for ways to keep the blog interesting in order to keep and draw more subscribers in order to raise more funds for charity.
” I found his arguments too faith based rather than fact based” – agree – and then he accused Bart of that kind of blindness!!! Grrr! That was weird and – I must say – unexpected! Firth lost me there for sure.
I agree in a sense but where do you find an objective scholar who believes that there are no contradictions — or even one who might convincingly step into the role by advocating a plausible theory that there are no contradictions? I mean we might as well ask Bart to put forth the best rebuttals to his affirmation that there are contradictions; where would or could he even start?
I really enjoyed the blog debate. The winner Bart Ehrman, not even close. It was interesting to see how someone who needs to have a perfect Bible will do whatever it takes to keep it perfect. My donation was extremely well spent. I would very much like to see more of these types of debates; very educational!
I was unimpressed with Matt Firth’s responses, so my interest waned. I think it was because the debate is lopsided. Bart really has the facts on his side.
Matt would’ve been more successful if he came back with the evidence about the grammar usage or about the lineage.
I think a future debate with Bart vs. a scholar would be more interesting.
Firstly, thank you both;
Secondly, I’m afraid I personally don’t find these debates helpful. I don’t want to get mad at what I perceive to be dishonesty, but I do at least get irritated;
Thirdly, I read too much research which tells me people simply do not change their minds (but I admire Bart’s hope that at least some will – and I remind myself that I did!);
Fourthly, maybe future debates with people who are not invested in (paid by) a dogma their salary depends on?
Fifthly, the money raised is good, and it’s for a genuine cause (too many ’causes’ are bogus! In Africa we especially have many shady characters ‘saving the rhino’ and too much of that money does not actually reach effective conservation;
Thanks again. But mainly for the blog as it usually is.
Would it be possible for you and Mark Goodacre to do a blog discussion on the case for and against Q?
Interesting idea.
Terrific idea. I appreciate that Dr. Goodacre is in the minority, but he makes some good points against Q.
I think you are right that debates rarely changes minds, but might at least plant some seeds. I am reminded of reading of a Christian apologist claiming to have won a debate because an exit poll showed that a majority (like 70%) agreed with his position. But I would point out that if 90% started out on his side and only 70% afterwards that he actually lost the debate! So, the “results” of debates are (ha) debatable, but they can be an exercise in thinking and hopefully have some value in opening minds.
Ha!
The Rav from wish I am studying the Torah often says: “If a teaching in the Torah can’t help you in this lifetime, in your day to day, right now, it’s worthless”.
That’s why I brought up the “Spirit of the text” in my initial comment, before the debate…
Since the Spirit of the text was not addressed, only the letter… it felt like a debate about “is this gravesite contradicting this other gravesite”.
When you dive into the spirit of the letter, you know if something is contradicting the other, because it is alive, the teaching is speaking to you, in this lifetime …
In a text that is alive, two things can contradict themselves and still both can be true, that is called a paradox, and that is a powerful place of learning… Jews know this profoundly… “the word of God is more cutting than a double-edged sword”.
In this debate, I have not felt that life, it felt like wish corps pissed farther than the other!
The extra point I give you Mr. Ehrman, compared to Rev. Firth, is for your tone…
“The purpose of this event is to provide intellectual engagement by exploring long debated theological subjects while raising funds for charitable giving.”
To the purpose then, this was a success. We were engaged intellectually, and, it raised funds for charitable causes.
Let’s do more. Thanks.
I love to read biographies of people who have changed their minds about Christianity. C.S. Lewis, John Loftus, and Dan Barker have written good ones. I am sill waiting for Dr. Ehrman’s biography. My trouble with this debate is that I just could not understand Rev. Firth’s arguments. One key to a good argument is making it clear. Dr. Ehrman has a gift for writing clearly. My second problem is this: If the Bible is the Word of God, then why didn’t the “Divine Editor” or the authors of the Gospels just make these issues a lot clearer by just describing what they were doing in a given genealogy, etc.? In other words, if Rev. Firth is correct about this and that why didn’t the Bible just say this and that? It would have made life a lot simpler. My third issue is a little trickier to express. Does Dr. Firth think that the counter-arguments also make good sense or that the literal, inerrant interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation? This is an important question for me because I grew up in a church tradition where those who did not agree with an inerrant view of the Bible got shunned and ostracized or literally kicked out for corrupting others..
Yup, I get the problems! But one thing I’ll add is that I don’t think Firth does believe in a literal interpretation; he thinks that the meaning of the words in their grammatical context do not actually show what the author *meant*.
I haven’t read the debate with Matthew Firth yet. I’ll comment on your many recorded debates over the decade. The religious disposition of people in the live audience of debates may be unrepresentative of the much wider global audience who listen/watch the recording shortly afterwards and in the years to come. It is unsurprising very few minds are changed by a 2-3 hour debate. Indeed, one’s beliefs and worldview would prove to be very flimsy and poorly informed if one can readily change position just by listening to a single debate. The success of a debate should be judged by the impact on wider audience, and whether the listeners felt challenged by arguments by the other side, whether they learnt something new, whether they feel a bit more inclined to revisit the justification of their beliefs – even if they are far from being persuaded to change their overall position. It is no different in scholarship and academia – most scholars won’t change their overall position just by one well-argued journal article, or one book, concerning topics with well-established competing camps. The debates you do could encourage the listeners to read your books, join your blog – benefitting everyone.
I enjoyed the debate and got my money’s worth. I know my biases and knew that the Reverend wouldn’t change them but I am very interested in how apologists construct their defense of inerrancy. In that regard, he did not disappoint! Without evidence, all he can do is construct possibilities of which they were pretty much beyond reason. They aren’t beyond his faith and, to me, that is really sad. How would his faith suffer if he admitted contradictions? What would he have to leave behind? Is he really so fearful of becoming atheist? Well never know because he just won’t admit them…even though he has to have Levirite marriages all over the place.
I got what I wanted…an apologist trying to rationalize the irrational with a creative imagination and the convictions of his faith!
Dr. Ehrman believes that if the balance of evidence, historical and textual, shows that there is a contradiction, then there is a contradiction. Rev. Firth believes that if there is any possible interpretation that could resolve the contradiction, then there is no contradiction. Each debater won by his own standard. Rev Firth’s standard is proof beyond any possible doubt, which, for a man of faith, is surely special pleading.
I enjoyed the debate, though, and hope to see more.
I’ve been discussing Bible contradictions on the internet for over two decades, so I appreciated this debate, even though none of the alleged contradictions or their purported rebuttals was new to me, at least for the most part. I suggest having future debates on your forum rather than in a series of blog posts. That way, the whole debate would be in one thread, and each participant could use the quote function to show just the part to which he is replying. I also think that a new ground rule should be established: “intentional” contradictions are still contradictions. Rev. Firth committed two logical fallacies when discussing Luke. First, he begged the question by asserting that Luke must have known about a 40-day post-resurrection time period when he concluded his Gospel. Then, he committed the fallacy of hasty generalization by assuming that since this was true, Luke must have known about, but chose to omit, the Matthew-28 appearance, which Firth arbitrarily asserted is between Luke 24:43 and 44. He does the same thing when he asserts that Luke intentionally omitted Matthew’s account of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt between Luke 2:38 and 39. The bar to clear for many Christian apologists seems to be that if he/she can posit any how-it-could-have-been scenario, then the burden has been shifted to the one claiming contradiction. That might satisfy those who adhere to Bible inerrancy, but I don’t find it particularly convincing.
The debate was restricted to the gospels and that was the only limiting factor, because when someone claims “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” then they should be ready and willing to discuss/defend all scripture.
I do hope that you do such blog debates and other debate in the future. It is important to discuss specially for the knowledge that comes out.
Even if we know 9 of 10 arguments and responses for it but that 1 new piece of knowledge is worth the whole discussion. That 1 piece may be the missing piece that people are looking for.
Prof. Ehrman,
For people willing to explore evidence wherever it goes, I have another theory for you. That Jesus faked his death and truly did resurrect, using a cannabis tincture that made him appear dead. Jesus was assisted by the Three Mary’s, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus who tended to his wounds and then revived him Sunday morning. It is a medical reality that extremely strong cannabis tinctures can knock a person out for two days and make them appear dead. This is documented in ancient and modern medical literature, and is described medically as ‘catalepsy and coma’. Shakespeare describes the exact scenario in Romeo and Juliet. Cannabis was long in use ritually and medically in the ancient Near East particularly in the Goddess cults and Mystery religions, whose initiates were mostly women, and whose traditions were persecuted by monotheistic authorities. Hindu Fakirs have been documented demonstrating fake deaths and burials using cannabis drugs and meditation to acheive the effect. Jesus of course, suffered grievous, violent injuries, so perhaps he only survived 40 days after the crucifiction before finally succumbing to his wounds and dying.
I have an article prepared presenting the argument using nothing but scripture and accurate knowledge of cannabis. The article is excerpted from a book I am currently writing on the history of Goddess traditions. I will be publishing this article somewhere, but am happy to share it here first as I believe this group may enjoy a fresh new debate with a little controversy.
Ed Dodge
I don’t know if you’ve read any 19th century German rationalists discussing the historical Jesus and his death, but they’d be right up your alley! Not to mention Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot.
I am familiar with Schonfield’s ‘The Passover Plot’, but my hypothesis is different from his in many ways. First of all, my thesis is pretty simple, while Schonfield injects many dubious theories that undermine his case. My argument is that there is a specific potion we can identify that can create the effects of a body appearing dead, that is medically documented. Secondly, I state that Jesus had help, but not from the Disciples who were not privy to the plan. The Three Mary’s are the heart of my conspiracy, they administer to Jesus the potion that allows him to appear dead, ‘the sour wine on a sponge’, and they pull him down off the cross before he dies. It is women that would have known about these potions because they come from the Goddess cults and the traditions of midwifery. I agree with Schonfield that the spear wound may have been too much and was unanticipated. Jesus’s wounds were very grievous, he resurrects with help, convalesces for 40 days, meets 500 people, and then ultimately succumbs to his wounds and dies.
I think the theory is fairly plausible given the evidence we have, and that it is a worthy thought experiment. Most importantly, this theory confirms the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus without resorting to the supernatural. I am inclined to believe the witnesses, especially since multiple rival sects sprang up after Jesus came and left that did not get along well with one another. This says to me that something really did happen but multiple interpretations are possible.
wheres the write up?
I have the article written, I have not published it yet as it is an excerpt from my unpublished book so I need to be strategic about where I post it. I will share it with Dr. Ehrman if he wants to see it. I will share it with anyone privately who wants to see it.
You can reach me through my blog, http://www.edwardtdodge.com. I write on the history of cannabis as a hobby, and that is how I approached this subject. I also write about clean energy technology and policy.
Who won? The readers of course, especially if you do them again. I promise to make a (small) donation each time. Admittedly, Mr Firth made me feel like a Roman mathematician, but he had a hard sell going up against a guy who wrote (the) book on contradictions. Still, I found his arguments fascinating and well worth the read.
Thanks again.
I’m a fan of these debates, especially since it gives each party more time to formulate a point or cross-point than a face-to-face debate does. Personally, I can agree with Bart’s point that this debate, in and of itself, will probably not sway someone one way or the other; however, if this were, say, the 44th article someone read about the contradictions in the Bible, or how difficult it can be to interpret what was intended 2000 years ago, it may be that “final” straw that broke the camel’s back, and, thus, worth the time of the debaters. I also enjoy the written format of the debates, as it gives me time to reread information and digest my own opinion before moving forward. I’d love to see more of these!
I think it was worth a try, but Firth was determined not to engage in anything other than a defensive strategy. Obviously there are contradictions–he admitted that–but not ‘necessary’ contradictions–contradictions that can be explained away, and explain away he did (and if he couldn’t, he backpedaled).
In his mind, the majority agree with him that the gospels are factually true, and have never given the matter much serious thought (he’s right about that), and therefore all he had to do to win was not to lose.
it was a bit like one of those boxing matches where one opponent can’t punch his way to victory, so he just keeps holding on to the other pugilist (sorry for the image), to avoid getting knocked out. You won on points, but such displays are never terribly thrilling. I really could do without any more debates on the fine points of Greek grammar for a while.
He did basically concede the nativity story debate (by dropping the matter entirely), and you rather courteously allowed him to do so. Anyway, it was for charity, right?
i still don’t understand something, i hope you can clarify .
luke:
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.
matthew :
11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened.
matthew :
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee….
luke:
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you…
according to matthew,
the women went to report to the 11 that an angel and jesus told them to tell the 11 that he(jesus) is on his way to galilee.
matthew said, “now the 11 went to galilee”
according to the reconciliation , when did the women tell the 11?
according to the reconciliation, the news should be “go to galilee, you guys already seen jesus eating a fish in jerusalem, he is on his way to gailee” ?
what prompts the 11 to go to galilee?
i just asking, if matthew had known that jesus already eat a fish in jerusalem and was seen by the 11 in a room, does it make any sense that he would word his account like the way he did?
he says
1. 11 While they were going,
2.Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee
this would give readers the impression that 11 went because of what the women said in verse 11.
Before verse 11, they are instructed by two things, an angel and jesus.
so was matthew an HONEST story teller? did he tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth ? did he like to fool and mislead readers under the guidance of the holy spirit?
Dr. Bart- you might enjoy my wife’s viewpoint during this debate. Her background is Baptist/fundamentalist; she is now freed from that persuasion, and her views largely mirror yours. But, she likens herself to the story of a little girl who wanted a pony for Christmas, and finding no new animal in the barn that morning, began digging around in a giant pile of manure…”gotta be a pony in there somewhere” the lass explained to her bewildered mother.
My wife still has trouble shedding this “horse manure” mentality; Christianity held sway in her life for so long, she just can’t help but think “there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere,” that somewhere there’s a nugget, a fact, that will validate the deity of Jesus. As she puts it, “it would just be so nice to be able to believe in the Christmas story again, it was such a charming, fun piece of childhood.” She knows it’s a fruitless adventure, but she can’t help but dig around in the manure occasionally…such as during the Firth debate. She would read his responses, and say “well, maybe…”
So, she gave Firth the benefit of EVERY doubt…but each doubt dissolved as she examined the details. No pony in the poo!
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS:
-Was the debate worth it? That’s for Bart to decide! It WAS interesting, and it was fun to read.
-More in the future? We would enjoy similar presentations, but not if it burdens you.
-Format? Reasonable. But we would urge you to have a few more ground rules (for example, YOU gave your definition of *contradiction* before the debate, but Firth offered HIS definition at the conclusion of the entire debate).
-Most convincing argument? Let the writers tell their own stories, don’t create a new story just to *reconcile* discrepancies (but, as we know, that would invalidate the essence of almost 1900 years of Christian craftwork)
Bart, what say you to the same format with William Lane Craig? Thoroughly enjoyed the debate, but Matthew Firth seemed to be fighting well outside of his weight class, despite his understanding of Ancient Greek. Would love to see a debate like this with William Lane Craig. He is a formidable debater in a live format, with a shotgun-approach that makes it hard to respond to all of his points in the time given, despite obvious weakness in his arguments. Watching him on the “Ben Shapiro Show” right now on YouTube and am becoming exhausted with his assumptions (explain the “facts” of the resurrection and the empty tomb), appeal to authority (most NT scholars confirm the resurrection as historical fact…well, duh! Most are Christians!), the conflation of all of the Gospel accounts into one unified voice, etc. I’m willing to dig deep if Bart will arrange a written debate with WLC. I would like a shot at him and Early Christian Studies isn’t even my historical field.
Interesting idea. I did a live debate with him once, and didn’t find him very respectful.
I really doubt WLC would agree to a written debate as it would invalidate his style of “fact bombing”. A written debate would leave him exposed to someone actually being able to counter his “facts” one by one and he depends on oral debates being unable to do that.
It would be interesting as all get out though!
Here is a link to Bart’s debate with WLC. I have to admit to enjoying Sean Carroll’s performance in his debate with Craig. Dr. Carroll has a terrific podcast. Would enjoy seeing you as a guest on it, Dr. Ehrman.
https://youtu.be/MW5_nJYSKyk
I enjoyed the debate. As for judging the debate, I would use a point system using Aristotle’s “Posterior Analytics” that the one who has to make the fewest hypotheses wins. So, every time someone has to make “an exception” to the literal meaning of the text to fit the argument, one point is deducted. The winner is simply the one closest to zero (no exceptions to what the text actually says).
Bart, is this the schedule for the blog debate:
April 15 – What is a Contradiction
April 16 – Contradictions in the Gospels
= = =
April 16 – Firth’s Response
April 22 – My Response to Firth
= = =
April 28 – Firth’s Second Response
May 3 – My Response to Firth
= = =
May 12 – Firth’s Final Response
= = =
May 15 – Judge the Debate
I suppose so. Why are you asking?
For people (including me) who were not reading every day and want to go over the debate so they can relate to “judging the debate!”
Ah, yup, that should be the sequence. If in doubt just use the search function to look for Firth
I am glad the debate raised money for such a worthy cause, and both of you are to be commended for contributing your time and effort to this. There was a time when I thoroughly enjoyed this sort of thing, but I think that time has past. The positions of the debaters, as you note, are not going to change, and I feel that is true of most of the audience. Knowing what my basic orientation to Biblical literature is, I would rather move on to discover new things that enhance my knowledge and understanding, that enable me to reach a deeper and more meaningful level. That is where the blog has always been so helpful to me and why I enjoy reading your books. I want to build on the foundation that is already there and move forward rather than go back to debate what I have already concluded is pretty firmly established.
I, like you, experienced a conversion after attending a Bible College, and going into ministry, began to take seriously the inconsistencies I had found over the years. I don’t know why, but when reading such debates I want so badly for the opposing side of yours to crush one of your arguments.
I cannot deny my own confirmation bias as hard as I try, so I long for a solid argument to plausibly explain the inconsistencies you raise. Unfortunately I am left wanting.
I enjoyed the format and debate…it is good to shake it up at times, but Firth totally missed the mark. His rationale was weak, disjointed, avoided your main points and ended up moving to ad hominem comments which usually are marked cries of defeat. He avoided and side stepped the genealogical problem and really stepped into it trying to argue Greek grammar with a textual critic unmasking his ignorance and refusal to concede you taking him to school. Do it again, but maybe next time with someone with a little more intellectual spark.
If I may please: you state, “so I long for a solid argument to plausibly explain the inconsistencies you raise. Unfortunately I am left wanting.”
I say, me too, and I am a non-believer. I, too, have my confirmation biases.
Apologetics tend to come across to me as hand-waving.
“Where’s the beef?”
All right so maybe I’m weird … I’ll admit to having eaten a lot of paint chips when I was a kid (I liked the green metallic ones best) … but I thought this format was great.
On topics like the one covered in this debate, I’d guess that it’s not that likely that readers would make an immediate change and overturn their previously held viewpoint on the/a topic.
The advantage of your debate-on-blog format, imo, is long term in that people can reread the documented debate transcript and think about it further (with an opportunity to do some further research) for months to come. Any changes in personal viewpoints may occur months from now after much focused thought.
So I’d go with those who think this debate was overall very successful (and raised money for a charitable cause).
– an endorsement of the format from a recovering paint chip muncher. ????
Hi Bart, enjoyed the blog debate, great format. It gives one the luxury of going back over the printed page and digesting the opposing view points at a less frantic and pace than a verbal debate.
Professor,
The debate was a great topic, great structure, eird amounts, etc. I think blog debates are definitely more fruitful than stand up ones. One has to think on the fly when rebuttals happen, and it does not give much time for further thought process and research. So I personally prefer blog debates.
Onto my personal take on this debate. I must first start by stating that I once believed Mr.Firth ideology. It was about 5 years ago I would of agreed whole heartily. After further questioning my beliefs to answer questions I never got answers to when growing up, I found answers that did not agree with my initial belief system. Then I had a choice to make: to either stay in my belief and believe blindly and hope that it’s all true, or take that step out of the boat and get my feet wet in the field of history and scholarly works. So I chose the latter and haven’t looked back. So yes I have changed my views before. And as more and more evidence is presented that is the most probable and matches the history I can be persuaded to change again. To me finding truth is a constant change in stances and views where the evidence goes.
Overall great topic, poor counter arguments on the Reverend part. Not compelling, too many questions, not enough answers to those questions. I actually would of loved a response by you Bart in the technological of the Greek grammar where you thought it would not of been good due to readers getting confused. I would like to know your complete answer, confusion and d. Ha!
I believe Ehrman won. First is always the standard of not what is POSSIBLE but MOST LIKELY. Bart’s arguments appeared to be more technically factual. For instance, why accept an argument that requires an unusual interpretation of Greek over one supported with many examples? It might be true, but there is no reason to come up with a unique interpretation unless trying to make a predetermined outcome. And what is the likely hood of so many consecutive generations having unique marriages to make the genealogy work?
Granted some claimed contradictions have “reasonable” potential explanations due to culture, language use, etc. But many explanations require accepting unlikely possibilities. Even just mathematically, a lot of even 10% possible solutions multiplies out to extremely unlikely that the Bible has no contradictions.
But I would still say that if you use the kinds of arguments the apologists use for the Bible that you can prove all holy books are true. So then why accept only the Bible anyway? Conservative Christians certainly don’t use the same standards when discounting the book of Mormon or the Quran!
“what did you think of the idea of a blog debate and the way it was set up? Was it worth doing in your view? Should there be others?”
I’ve seen now three of your debates, Bart: a live one in Dallas, a video of one of your live ones, and now this blog debate. All were interesting enough, I suppose; but I think I have the idea now. I’d rather see more of your wonderful guest posts than more debates.
Many thanks! 🙂
Here are places I felt the arguments could have gone in his favor.
1. I thought he had a strong argument with Jarius saying different things and Mark and Matthew just recording the different things he said. He shifted the contradiction away from the gospels and onto Jarius.
2. His first response to your point about Nazareth and Bethlehem was strong. He pointed out that a lot of the language you used, e.g. “on foot”, “as soon as”, “straight to”, are not in the text. In fact, he did well whenever he pointed out that “the text is much more flexible than you suggest.”
3. Finally, much like point 2, in relation to Luke and the resurrection, you point out how people “normally think” or what is “sensible/plausible.” However, that does not mean “possible.” It sounded like you were saying that it was possible that there was no contradiction in Luke, but not plausible. And all an inerrantist needs is a possibility.
Should you do this again? I enjoyed it and found it frustration at the same time. In an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, everything is possible. (In fact, both of you argued a lot about what certain Greek words meant. It is possible that Luke really didn’t know what those words meant when he used them. There is no contradiction because even Luke didn’t know what he was saying!) Therefore, if you did it again, I think both sides need to start off with the proposition that, while anything is possible, we are arguing what is most plausible.
Thank you for doing this and thank you for giving me an opportunity to give you my input.
Also enjoyed the debate. Won’t convince the convinced, but, reflecting on personal experience, I agree that it will definitely be food for thought for fence sitters and those serious about following the truth wherever it takes them.
The debate was interesting. The format was fine. After watching and listening to dozens of debates on YouTube concerning religious belief, atheism, the afterlife, etc., it was refreshing to READ a debate at leisure without the video and audio distractions.
As far as the near impossibility of changing individual minds, I always have the lyrics of one of the Doobie Brothers’ songs running through my head when watching these types of debates or in discussions I have with family and friends:
What a fool believes he sees,
No wise man has the power to reason away.
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing.
Nothing at all.
That helps me keep my cool when engaging in discussions with individuals (for example, most of my high school friends) who are obviously full time residents of Fantasyland.
One of their best.
In my opinion you won the debate and I don’t say that because I am heavily biased towards you. You poked holes in Mr. Firth’s arguments and his attempts to squeeze a period of 40 days into a virtually non-existent space between two verses seemed like grasping at straws. The rest was even more far-fetched.
The debate was absolutely worth doing and I wish to see more of it on other topics such as whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.
The value and effect of what you do is perhaps best expressed by dr. William Lane Craig at Gracepoint Berkley Church : “ today he (Ehrman) … writes books against Christian faith which are enormously destructive and which have proved troubling to many Christians who read them and as a result are filled with doubts about their Christian faith and experience.”
You must have done something right to deserve that dr. Ehrman.
Yes, my books are actually not against the Christian faith. They’re against *his version* of the Christian faith. For him, of course, that’s the same thing.
Bart,
If your version of the Christian faith is of the founder being an apopalyptic doomsday prophet who didn’t engage in any miracles yet did teach peace and love and got on the wrong side of the law and was executed for it, and his followers then made up a story of a Resurrection and an impending “Second Coming” that the world came to believe but never happened and so they tweaked the message to try and make it make sense, then I think your version is very much against the Christian faith.
I also think the Christian faith as the Church teaches it is balderdash. I think your idea is at least believable, yet does indeed trash Christianity (perhaps rightly).
And I fully believe the Church buried the true Christian message, and can see that the world rejects that message (rejects the chief cornerstone).
This is not such a bad thing, however. It is what it is. Others see through the nonsense and within the framework make lasting advances that will carry them along.
I heartily disagree. Many of my closest and oldest friends are ordained Christian ministers, and they agree with my view of the historical Jesus.
Bart,
I appreciate what you say, but I don’t see it. We see wannabe Christs walking about in every era including now. Their message is invariably of peace and love, and they speak of how the authorities oppose their message, which is invariably the end is near. Nobody in their right mind sees these “spiritual” masters as anything but nutcases. If miraculous healings were not taking place in the presence of Jesus, then he was just another of these frauds. He believed and taught that the world would soon end, but it didn’t end? Hogwash!
I think you and your associates feel that there is something to Jesus, and so cannot dismiss him. I believe you have the message wrong, he taught an elevated message and it is called “gnosticism” by the Orthodox. They don’t understand it so they dismiss it, just as did the early church leaders. But you’re left with just another nutcase image professing to be God.
You may think my friends are *wrong*. But it would be very difficult indeed to say they aren’t Christian!
Well actually I’m in agreement with your friends that Jesus was the Master. But I’m certain in my mind that the Crucifixion story was not in any way his teachings. I’m saying, if it was, and/or if he got himself crucified for turning over the moneychanger tables, then he was ABSOLUTELY NOT the Master. I’m am very certain that the crux of his teaching is found in the Gospel of Thomas. The “Kingdom” is here in front of our faces but people don’t see it.
I appreciate the exchange. You are vey kind to go one-on-one with us peons.
I’ve commented before that I’m not a big fan of debates with non-critical scholars, because it’s like arguing with Trump supporters or mythicists — they’re going to believe what they want regardless of the facts, so reading their counter arguments isn’t illuminating on any level. But I’d pay a special fee to read debates between you and other critical scholars on topics where you disagree — that would be something special.
I just feel sad that an obviously intelligent scholar would feel the need to bend himself into a pretzel to defend biblical inerrancy.
good debate! I liked somethings about it and some others I didn’t. I liked that the written format brings the best possible arguments from both parts because you have time to think carefully so I learned a lot from it but It came boring in some parts. Could I suggest a video response to make it more fun and easy to follow? What about a cross examination phase in which one part asks questions to the other and the other must answer?. what about that the members of the blog could be allowed to ask questions to both debaters (It could be used as a fund raising strategy by only allowing to ask questions those who donate a certain amount of money or something like that). Great job Dr Ehrman.
I had been dreading the debate but ended up enjoying it very much. In particular, I was pleased that some of the arguments (on both sides) were things I hadn’t encountered before. That made it a learning experience, regardless of whether my mind was changed on anything.
I was very pleased that the debate was short — so that it didn’t devolve into repetition of what had already been said — and that both parties were polite and respectful.
Regarding the topic: I particularly like it because it was one in which at least one of the sides (Ehrman) had the possibility of having a mind changed relatively easily because doing so wouldn’t require any change in personal philosophy. Finding that an apparent contradiction in the Bible wasn’t really a contradiction would have no impact on Ehrman’s world view.
For this reason, I might like to see debates on topics that had more scholarly than religious stakes. Maybe something about what Biblical text represents later additions or which text variant is more likely true? (I’d rely on the experts to tell me what subject has something worth discussing in it.)
No, it did not change my mind but I enjoyed it. Blog members will usually side with you, obviously, so it was brave of him to agree to the debate. Much of the argument hinged on interpretations of the original Greek, of which I have almost zero knowledge and therefore cannot judge. I come at it from a more philosophical perspective: using Ockham’s razor, which is the simplest and, therefore, the most likely, explanation? Who is the most committed to a particular outcome? Where do the probabilities lie? Which explanation was the most convoluted? On all counts Bart was the more convincing. Faith presupposes a specific conclusion and so cannot be trusted: it is not a conduit to the truth, in my experience.
Any chance of a debate between you and James Tabor on whether Jesus was buried or not?
It was good. Other topics could be even better like, the gospels, how much is historical? Or something of that nature. Also as someone mentioned, a minimal facts debate.
Thank you for this debate. The anticipation added to the suspense as to how each of you would respond to the others’points.
I was educated by Bart in how to counter apologist arguments in ways I would otherwise be unable to do.
At least a couple of us think a most interesting debate would be between you and Gerd Lüdemann regarding his early dating of 1 Thessalonians to 41 CE.
We would not be bothered by fundamentalist nonsense; no waste of time and intellect. Just pure scholarly debate leading toward a better understanding of the earliest piece of literary evidence for the historical evolution of what eventually became Christianity.
Let us know if you think some other, Pauline specialist would be better able to represent the consensus for a later dating of 1 Thessalonians to the 50s.
Evidence of the groundswell of support for this debate can be found in this thread:
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-historical-jesus/the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus-chapter-18-the-position-of-the-subject-at-the-close-of-the-19th-century-by-albert-schweitzer/page-4/
Yeah, I’d debate it if I had any interest or serious expertise. My basic view is that there’s no way to provide a precise dating. 41 CE? Would that have been on March 12 at about noon? (Don’t know about you, but Pauline chronology has always been one of my least favorite neutestamentliche topics; a real snoozer for me….)
Bart: “Yeah, I’d debate it if I had any interest or serious expertise. My basic view is that there’s no way to provide a precise dating. 41 CE? Would that have been on March 12 at about noon? (Don’t know about you, but Pauline chronology has always been one of my least favorite neutestamentliche topics; a real snoozer for me….)”
Personally, I think it’s very interesting that we may have evidence of Jesus being understood as Lord and Messiah perhaps as early as 10 years after his death at the hands of Judean authorities and that that this message had already spread to Macedonia and Achaia at that time. Does it matter much that all of this would only occur a decade later, I suppose not, but it is indeed striking if it occurred even earlier.
My view is that people were saying he was Lord and messiah during his life….
Bart: “My view is that people were saying he was Lord and messiah during his life….”
Sure, I’m not disagreeing or debating that point. Yet it still seems to me rather interesting that gentiles would also be saying this in Macedonia and Achaia already in 41 CE, so soon after his crucifixion. And the sense that Paul gives to Jesus as Lord in 1 Thessalonians is quite a bit higher, literally heavenly, than that attributed to Jesus during his lifetime, by his disciples.
Yes, it’s interesting. But since the people who converted them had been thinking such things for years shows that it’s not unexpected. (I think the ealriest followers of Jesus thought this soon after the resurrection; certainly Paul did by 33 or 34 CE)
So, if understand him correctly, and I may not, Rev. Firth’s main argument seems to be that many apparent Biblical contradictions can be explained by and attributed to ancient writing traditions and customs, such as the tradition of “telescoping.” . So, for example, it may have been the tradition not to distinguish between men and angels in ancient writing or between one and two men/angels. The scholarly problem then becomes what evidence do we have that such and such was a writing tradition and not someth9hing that is just said to be a tradition because it has to be a tradition to explain the contradiction?
Yes, that seems to be one of his arguments. I’d say his main one though is that *technically* speaking you can explain *any* contradiciton by coming up with an explanation, no matter how implausible. If I were to say that the PGA tournament ended today at 4:00 p.m. and you were to say that it ended at 6:00 a.m., both of us saying this in Durham NC, he might explain that by saying I had just gotten back from an overseas trip to, say, Istanbul and hadn’t reset my watch so I was operating in a different time zone. Strictly speaking it’s not a contradiction. If someone were to reply that there’s no evidence or reason to think I was in Istanbul, he would say, well, but he *could* have been so it’s not a contradiction. You can do that with anything. Koepka won the PGA; no Mickelson did. No he didn’t! Well he did years before. Or… Davis Love won it. No he didn’t — he *never* did. Yes, put he played well one year and finished in the top 10, so for *him* that was a victory. Etc….
Enjoyed it! I always like to hear the other side. And agree with the suggestions of more debates with other scholars/textual critics.
Bart,
I didn’t know about this debate, I’ll go looking for it later when I have a chance. I have watched a number of your YouTube debates. I have something to say, in regard to changing peoples minds.
First, we must consider that the other person is not free to just “change his mind”. He has the baggage of his own church or organization and fans, and must consider this. He is in essentially a physical world prison of largely his own making. His immediate surroundings are not going to budge, not right away.
Second point is, we have an inner inertia about us too. Once we accept a belief or lifestyle, we want to continue with it. I’ve sometimes knocked down what another man said and then when walking away begin reconsidering. You may plant a seed that will take root later, even years later.
And you mention Fox News and MSNBC. I don’t see it as proper to merely assume each side stubbornly holds on to their own view, for often one view is correct and the other wrong (the “Middle Ground Fallacy” assumes the truth to be always in the middle). Some Fox News hosts will daily put on two opposing views, and often the opposite view is clearly a political hack who is being paid to lie. These same people appear regularly and we come to know them, and they never disappoint us, always defending the one side, sometimes taking extreme ridiculous positions. But conversely, the other side are generally experts of some kind who believe in the truth — the obvious truth for those who have made an effort to look at the available facts and information, and who are not unduly influenced by a selfish motive, such as their side winning an election.
Regarding Christian theology, you were unable to keep your original position due to the wealth of contrary evidence. Long ago I began looking at metaphysical books and found a foundation of logical truth, which is that all beliefs are temporal and none are “true”. Knowing this, I cannot ever accept traditional Church theology, and Christians of whom I discuss with simply will not consider the metaphysical information — they will believe that their beliefs are right, and consequently that other beliefs are wrong. It is the withholding of information from yourself that allows you to be inflexible.
I’ll look for that debate
I’ve seen this kind of debate done with IntelligenceSquared, where they track how many people believed in either proposition or were undecided before and after the debate. There’s usually a lot of change, so debates really do matter. Of course, we don’t know whether the people who changed their minds changed back after a few weeks – but we also do not know how many change their mind after a few weeks. Then again, they don’t typically debate questions people have at the core of their identity. I think the discussion is worth having, though. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Interesting. Do they do this with debates on *religious* topics about which people already have an opinion?
Not crazy about this written debate. There may be more time to formulate ideas and responses etc. but the time constraints in live debates play a role in revealing a certain depth of knowledge of the subject. Also, I learn quite a bit about the debaters true position and level of conviction when certain vocalities are present you can only get in spoken word. One can occasionally pick up on an air of doubt emanating from the speaker. Additionally, I find myself back-paging more when dealing with the written format.
Hi. I wanted to mention first that as someone who came across your blog the other day and skimmed through it a bit, it was the prospect of reading this debate in full that made me decide to subscribe – definitely I think from the point of view of ‘marketing’, so to speak – of course, that word perhaps doesn’t fit for something non-profit such as this – the debate format is positive. Everyone’s enticed by the chance to see a good old showdown!
I haven’t got too much to add regarding the content of the debate itself, but I would note that, coming at this from a Classics perspective as I do, the Jairus incident very much set the tone for me. I’m sorry, Firth, but if you’re starting out a debate by claiming that arti eteleuthsen can have future reference, you’re going to need to provide some substantial evidence – parallels – if you don’t want to set alarm bells ringing in my head from the off.
And there were a number of things he said that no Classicist would let fly – this argument based on ‘the common practice of ancient authors in leaving out material that they know to have occurred’, saying ‘this random dictionary [ok, probably it’s just the Classicist in me that objects to citing a concise New Testament lexicon rather than a ‘proper’ work of reference for Greek as a whole] offers this as a potential translation for this headword’ and presuming that enough, etc.
I had a similar thing talking about the geneaologies with a friend, who took the ‘Luke=Marian’ position, the other day. If you want to claim that ‘X of Y’ means ‘X, step-son of Y’, contrary to thousands of occurrences elsewhere in Greek, for the love of all that’s decent, back it up properly! Instead he just said ‘can’t it be a genitive of reference?’
Anyway, thanks, and best wishes from Cambridge, England.
Yeah, I decided not to point out that concise dictionary of New Testament Greek thing….
I liked Bart’s pragmatism regarding the nature of “debates” and that most folks listen to both sides but only hear those arguments – well-argued or not – which confirm their own beliefs. Given Bart’s own “Road to Emmaus” and approaching it with intellectual openness resulted in a profound change to his early beliefs. I was raised in a liberal Christian tradition as a Universalist-Unitarian and so disregarding the mythology and fundamentalist literalism comes easily. The challenge for me is finding and keeping the radically straightforward moral and ethical truths taught by the world’s wisdom traditions – thank you Huston Smith – while discarding those theological accretions of “The True Believers” – thank you Eric Hoffer – while remembering, and holding sacred, the standing miracle of life itself – Tat Tvam Asi. Thanks Bart for your ongoing efforts.
I liked the debate format a lot. Both parties were civil to each other, and yet with enough edge to make it interesting. I found it a little cumbersome when the debate got bogged down in language interpretations. Nevertheless, do it again.
Bart: “Yes, it’s interesting. But since the people who converted them had been thinking such things for years shows that it’s not unexpected. (I think the ealriest followers of Jesus thought this soon after the resurrection; certainly Paul did by 33 or 34 CE)”
But this would be early literary evidence for more than just those commonplace judgments. It would also be literary evidence, dated by critical scholars to about 10 years of the crucifixion, advancing forward 10 years:
1) Paul’s early view of the role of Judean authorities in the death of Jesus (if not an interpolation)
2) the early expansion of gentile christian communities into Macedonia and Achaia
3) perhaps most importantly, providing chronological breathing space to better understand the earliest stages in the evolution of Paul’s theology
You really don’t consider this to be one of the most exciting questions in New Testament scholarship today? Oh well, can’t say I didn’t try …
Yup, I agree. My historical views aren’t meant to be generalizations but conclusions based on an analysis of the surviving literary evidence. I don’t find *this* particular issue exciting in part because I think it is so well established. But when I was referring to “not exciting” I meant the question of whether 1 Thessalonians dates from 49 CE or 51 CE, or whether Philippians was written before or after Galatians, etc. The arguments for such things for me seem to be arcane and obscure, with people going to the mat for issues that seem to me to be both indeterminable (in their details) and less than scintillating. (IN broad contours, of course, the questions are vital; it’s the detailed argument I find unappealing) (personal predilection!)
Bart:: “… I don’t find *this* particular issue exciting in part because I think it is so well established. …”
OK, I will stop torturing you, but perhaps you could let us know who you consider to have best defended the consensus, later dating of 1 Thessalonians? Perhaps Jewett? At least he more or less shares Lüdemann’s dismissal of Acts as a worthwhile source for Pauline chronology. Personally, I don’t think the Pauline chronology is ‘so well established’, but I’m more than willing to try and learn from whomever you consider to be the master of Pauline chronology. 😉
I frankly didn’t know there was much of a controversy about it. I knew that a few scholars early-dated it, but it’s always seemed to me that the bases for dating anything Pauline are so tenuous that it’s hard to come up with anything definite. Maybe you could say how someone could pick 41, e.g.. Why 41?
Bart: “I frankly didn’t know there was much of a controversy about it. I knew that a few scholars early-dated it, but it’s always seemed to me that the bases for dating anything Pauline are so tenuous that it’s hard to come up with anything definite. Maybe you could say how someone could pick 41, e.g.. Why 41?”
The controversy is mostly of my own making, exacerbated by my passionate and partisan championing of Lüdemann and the few others who are willing to challenge the consensus dating. (I like to root for the underdog.)
This is not part of Lüdemann’s argumentation, but I like 41 because of the impending temple statue of Caligula helps contextualize 1 Thess 2,16. Lüdemann would actually date the letter a little later, sometime after Claudius’ decree regarding the Jews, which he dates to 41. Mostly, I see Paul’s level of theologizing in 1 Thessalonians to be very primitive relative to the later letters, for which I want to allow for as much time as possible for Paul’s much more mature thought to evolve.
Enjoyed and appreciate the debate, in particular the written format. In my opinion, there is no need or benefit for the third round. After round 2, each debater had presented his best arguments. The third back-and-forth was a bit redundant.
Thank you for the effort you put into it.
The debate is an interesting and valuable mini-exposition on the nature of the debate over inconsistencies in the bible. Although I don’t think Firth was up to the task or very convincing or responsive to Bart’s points, I at least get a sense of how believers in an inerrant bible go about explaining away what appear on the surface (and with Bart’s help, appear deep under the surface) to be contradictions. With the fact-based world of scholarship meeting the faith-based world of Christianity, it was never likely minds would be changed. Nevertheless it was edifying to observe because in our daily lives the issues we confront are seldom compartmentalized in the way academics is set apart from religion. I believe it is beneficial to observe these worlds collide as we saw in this or any other debate between a secular scholar and a Christian apologist.