New Testament Textual Issues

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Upcoming Debate With Bart Ehrman and Travel Plans

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. It is Tuesday one week and one day away from the debate with Bart Ehrman in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and That means actually for me. It's actually just a few days before I fly out because I will have the privilege of ministering at Tom Askel's Church in Florida this coming Sunday and then heading to Fort Lauderdale from there, it's sort of I Don't I?

Confess I don't know Florida geography very well, even though I've been there a number of times. For me it's really hard to figure out a state where there are no mountains to look at. Everything looks the same.

There's oh, there's a mountain over there. No, there's a mountain over there. But anyway we're gonna be going from one place to another and so I'm gonna be heading out earlier and Therefore have less time than it might appear to finish up the presentation I'm working on.

I was doing that until just a few moments ago literally about five minutes before the program came in here and as a result, I forgot to Grab the URL to a thread at Catholic answers. I was going to mention just briefly it was some comments by Phil por Vosnick now Phil por Vosnick is a Part-time sort of wannabe Roman Catholic apologist who will never pick up the phone and And call this program and make his claims because he knows that he would get turned inside out and wouldn't be able to answer questions but he's very brave behind a keyboard and tries to use humor to sort of you know cover the fact that he really can't handle what he's talking about, but he was commenting on the 33 ,000 denominations issue and It is truly amazing.

There there is no end to what the human mind can do to continue to believe a lie. Even as long as you want to believe the lie. As long as you want to believe it, you will find a way to continue to believe it that's just all there is to it and that's exactly what Phil por Vosnick has done is.

So what he does is he just ignores entire swaths of the information. He ignores the context. He ignores, you know, the Steve Ray has has said these are Protestant denominations. These are just solo scriptura that these include, you know, just the most wild group of of Group of groups you can put together including Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and and one is Pentecostals.

And yeah, this is all due to solo scriptura, right ignores all that and says well, you know. It's it's about 98 non-catholic. If that's somehow somehow relevant to rescuing himself. And rescuing the Roman Catholics who have just simply lied to us for so many years about that particular source.

You you cannot make a person honest you cannot make a person love the truth you cannot make a person Reason rationally in any way shape or form it as long as they want to believe something there. Don't those keep believing and that's that's what you see going on over on the Catholic answers board.

Meanwhile, I posted posted a did I I don't think I I just realized now I don't think I blogged it. Oops. Well, I'll get up there eventually. I will try to blog here fairly soon the Video that I put up.

Did I blog the video with with the Sam Gipp? I know I uploaded it to to the site, but I'm sitting here going did I blog that I don't think I did. I'll check but I put up a video Sam Gipp had. I don't know Sam Gipp.

Sam Gipp and he's King James only recommend eight and He put up a video Calling me a liar and saying I'm lying about the Ankerberg stuff. You know, the funny thing is it's very very clear from listening to him talk.

He hasn't even kept up with the developments on that subject over the years. He doesn't recognize that the VHS copy that the Ankerberg ministry had initially put out and which was put on the air Eventually did not have the Wilkin incident in it and then they reinserted it later.

Took out a long answer. I gave to make room for it so that they could You know provide the actual Video of what's it took place. There's only one incident took place. Sam Gipp's memory is just wrong and The day, you know, you've got it.

You've got to choose whether you could believe me or Sam Gipp. But I've told the same story from the beginning there is an article on our in our King James only section of websites been up there since In 95 96 97 somewhere around there.

It's been up there for over a decade. Telling the same story and when that video finally was provided by Ankerberg guess what it's exactly what I said it was. Same spot same question everything exactly as I described it or you can accept Sam Gipps word.

Except he doesn't have any video and doesn't have stuff that was written over a decade ago. Demonstrating that he was telling the same story. So you just sort of have to this afternoon, but it was interesting I didn't mention this in video, but at some at one point in the video.

He says that I can shave my head and grow facial hair all I want. So I don't look like the guy on the Ankerberg show. I Think he actually thinks that that I well he said later on I have nothing better to be doing anyways.

Which is I. You know, I just follow Sam Gipp around after he debates, you know Bart Ehrman and and Muslims in London and you know John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong, you know, yeah, that's I got nothing better to do then then just follow after him.

But anyways, evidently he really thinks that I changed my entire look just simply so I wouldn't look like the person in. Actually the reality of that is is Once age started catching up to me and I started looking like I was trying out for the part of Martin Luther after the taunter cut I Decided to Dump that real quick.

So I Tell you Anyway, so I put the documentation back up there and if I forgot to blog it out, I'll get it. It's not up there. Yeah, okay. Sometimes when I get up on the YouTube, it's like, okay, you know, it's there.

It's great and I forget to grab the embedding code and get it to get in the blog. So we'll take care of that. Anyway. Yeah, someone just mentioned in channel I would really really not want to see Bart Ehrman go up against Sam Gip that would be a whoo, that would be.

Mmm, that'd be bad given how badly the King James only guys did on the Ankerberg show and that was with Christians. It would be. Anyway, so I'm definitely looking forward to next week. I Would like to thank all of those who made it possible for Alan Kirshner to go to a Florida it's going to be nice to have Alan along.

He's one of the blog team on the team of Polygon. But but even more so as you may recall Alan was on with me a few months ago and we talked about Luke 23 34 and we discussed the textual variant there and He has been for a number of years now a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

He studied textual criticism under Eldon Epp. And so he knows the Epp-Ehrman-Parker triumvirate of modern textual critical scholars who Really are moving textual criticism away from its historical underpinnings that of establishing the original text of the New Testament to where now the focus is on the actual variants themselves and and the story that each manuscript can tell and Unfortunately a lot of folks don't realize that that's what's going on and and it is and I'll probably come out some next week.

I don't know this is such a large field and there's so many facts and figures to be thrown into it that I'm I Want to warn those who will be in attendance ahead of time. This will be a scholarly debate and I fully intend to be displaying manuscripts and variants and utilizing technical language.

Because you're going to have the opportunity of Then taking that material and listening to it again. I will have of course keynote presentation to be made so that it'll be a little bit easier to follow.

I think I've shown some of the illustrations. I put one of the graphics on the on the on the well an early edition one of the graphics on the vlog yesterday. Made some changes to that already. Some of you even saw there was a textual variant in my graphic.

Which I found rather interesting and it was inadvertent on my part initially. But the funny thing is it matches the exact text of Codex Sinaiticus. I'll talk about that sometime. We have more time to talk about it.

But anyway I'm gonna be illustrating these things and someone needs to someone needs to calm that man down out there and the studio audience. He's bouncing all over the place when he was leaning up against the wall.

The mirror was shaking and stuff like that. It's extremely distracting so that we need to we need to calm the the the studio audience down out there. You know, we we let these people in out of the goodness of our hearts.

They're standing out there in the cold. You better watch it. You get two of us out here now. We're gonna be fighting over who grabs the mic first.

Yes, but it still has a studio audience so Audience doesn't imply at least one. But anyway, so Anyway, I'm just letting you know Dr. Ehrman's assertions need to be challenged on a scholarly level and we have one shot at doing this and so We want to do so in an appropriate scholarly respectful fashion and I'm really praying that that's exactly what will take place.

I mentioned this on the apologetics comm radio program that aired over the weekend. So I might as well go ahead and mention it now. It is fully my intention and I would ask for your your prayers toward the completion of this project it's fully my intention as a result of doing these literally months of intensive study and research into the claims that Bart Ehrman makes in regards to misquoting Jesus and the use of his Material.

I have been encouraged by many and I think it is absolutely appropriate For me to take all this information. Not only the textual information the information about the manuscripts of backgrounds. The specific variants mark 141 Hebrews 2 9 John 1 18 that the text that he has addressed.

It is not only appropriate to take that information, but also his accusations concerning the synoptic Gospels Alleged synoptic parallel issues, which of course are always troubling to people and to put all of this into a single volume a refutation of Bart Ehrman and So that is my my intention to do so beginning when I get back from from the debate and the the conference and the cruise.

To begin to put that material together and so I would Pray for ask for your your prayers for that project especially in regards to who to have published it I have a specific idea in mind and Hopefully they will find that that information not even close.

No, no rich. No, no, no, no. But That that's something that's a just really needs to be done and I need to dive into it as soon as I get back in. The sense that it'll still be very fresh upon the mind and things like that.

So I am excited about that. It's it's been a couple of years since I wrote a book I have done two new editions by the way both Potter's freedom the final Galleys of the Potter's freedom second edition arrived yesterday were sent to me.

So that means it's gonna be heading to the Printer very quickly. So that should be available Fairly soon and I'm supposed to receive sometime this week great timing. I guess I can take them with me. I'm supposed to receive the the galleys on the second edition of the King James only controversy as well and I'm not sure how it's going to work because I haven't yet worked with them in the placement of some key graphics yet.

So still some work to be done there. And of course knowing how things work for me. They'll be calling and asking me to do that as I'm staying in line to get on the ship. That's that's normally how it works for me, but anyhow, so given all of that let's get back into the program that we have been reviewing and that is the dialogue between Bart Ehrman and Reggie Finley, I believe is the name.

And he is the infidel guy. This is from October 18th 2007 and we're gonna finally get into the part here fairly quickly. Where I think some real interesting disagreements going to take place. It's going to be very illustrative.

So let's get back into the program here.

The Woman Caught in Adultery and the Longer Ending of Mark

That story in the Gospels is probably the story of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery. And among you be the.

First to cast a stone at her. I like Monty Python's version better, but yes. Right. In any of the Gospels it was added later and we know this because we have older manuscripts that don't have it in there.

Yeah, well, that's one of the reasons. Okay, the oldest manuscripts don't have it. Okay, the the writing surrounding stories. Wow John well, this isn't even a debated point. I mean, I knew this when I was at the Moody Bible Institute.

Wow.

Catch that. Wow, you knew something when you were at Moody. Just the the bias prejudice whatever other words you want to use here just absolutely. Unbelievable, but yeah, everybody knows this and it's it's interesting to me I think the strongest reason to reject John 753 311.

Which is one of the two largest textual variants in New Testament. Mark 16 9 to 20 both have 12 verses. The strongest reason is is not this linguistic stuff about well, there are words here. There are not used anywhere else the Gospel of John.

Well, you can take almost any section of the Gospel of John find a unique word and say I can't be part of it. I just don't find that kind of argumentation compelling in almost a situation there. There might be some situations when something if this style is so completely different I mean if if you've got if you're bopping along in John and all of a sudden you run into a chapter that sounds like It's from Hebrews.

Okay with all sorts of addison's and stuff like that, okay fine that's that's understandable but. Something like that. That's not the strongest argumentation. Am I am I? From my perspective at all. The strongest reason from my perspective to see John 753 311 as non-original is is this.

It is found in one manuscript after John 736. It's found another manuscript a couple of family of manuscripts family one after John 21 25. And here's the here's the kicker for me in family 13. Family 13 is a group of manuscripts.

We've actually found interesting. You know some new members of family 13 just over the past couple of years. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has found them. It occurs in Luke 21 38.

The whole story in family 13 is in Luke not in John. And in 1333 it is found in after Luke 24 53. It is not found in p66 p75 Sinaiticus Alexandrinus Vaticanus etc etc so. But when you have a story that that travels from place to place that's generally indicative of a later accretion and that really to me is the the strongest evidence on that particular one, but again as Errm, Errman has said many times himself look.

There's really not much new in my book, and he's right up to a point. Because this is just general knowledge. This is stuff. I knew in Bible college, too. Really yeah people actually learn things about the college.

What is unusual about? Bart Ehrman's book is the application that he makes. When he says well look we don't know what the original was. What he means by that is not that the original doesn't exist in manuscript tradition.

But that we don't know with absolute Certainty photographic take a video of Paul as he wrote the words Certainty which of course we couldn't have for anything from the ancient world and therefore you really couldn't have anything that could meet Bart Ehrman's own standards for what is Inspired or supposed to be inspired according to his theory.

No, there's no not really even a debate about the woman taking an adultery, but most people have never heard of it. Never heard of the fact that it wasn't original to right so ACF.

And what does that tell you that tells you that most people are ignorant of the Bible and that includes Christians? And you're sitting there saying you are you seriously suggesting that we should tell our people about things like this.

I'm seriously suggesting that we should have the guts to print Bibles that don't have it in there. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that you know Dan Wallace said at his ETS presentation back in November that the NET seriously considered not having The pericope adultery John 753 811 and the long reigning of Mark in the actual text.

What they ended up doing and I had to chuckle at this and he got a good laugh out of it. Dan does Tell good stories is that they put the the font Much smaller and put it in brackets, and he said we made it smaller.

So it'd be harder to harder to read from the pulpit. So you got a good laugh out of that, but yeah, I'm saying yes, we do need to talk about these things. Because Bart Ehrman is why why did his book explode like this.

Well because It's not saying anything different than what we've been saying all along. But it's who said it and then the spin he put on it to try to create Unfaith disbelief that's that's why the book did what it did so yet again, I mean.

Surely you would. I don't understand. I mean, I guess there's some compartmentalization. But I mean if I was sitting there at the Moody Bible Institute, I guess I had to be a fundamentalist. But I mean if I heard that I'd go for the first thing to pop up my head is how many other instances are there of?

This yeah, that is what pops into everybody's head. That's exactly what pops into everybody's head. And that's why we have to talk about it. Because we're talking about one of two one of two major variants that in Mark 16 9 to 20 Beyond that your variants are single verses and Then there's a small number of them and almost all of those Not not including the Kami Ohanian, and that's barely even that that is a meaningful variant, but not a viable variant.

So it doesn't even enter into the meaningful category to be perfectly honest with you but Beyond that the vast majority of variations are word order phrases words spelling. So you're looking at the biggest thing here and so that is why Irving is bringing these things up is so that you have this Shock value to it.

That's that's what it's meant to do. The only way to counteract that is to take it away. Explain these things in the context of faith. Rather than allowing for all these false presuppositions just be assumed and then act upon the false presuppositions.

Well, that's what got me interested in this whole right right right and Institute that it was a really important issue because if you wanted to say that the words were inspired. So that's why I started devoting my life to looking into this.

Exactly, you know more than 30 years later. I you know this, you know I've changed my views about the inspiration of the text. But I haven't changed my view about the importance of looking into this kind of thing there.

Again, please note.

That that. The infidel guy did not force these words out of Bart Ehrman's mouth. This is a subject he addresses freely over and over and over again. That this is why he questioned these things. Because he learned these things.

And what's the unspoken? Statement. Beyond that and once you learn about these things you should question these things, too.

That is. The very essence and you yourself. You're now, you know agnostic. Agnostic, okay. Well good and then that works because the believers will still think you have a chance. They still think they have a chance of saving you.

Yes, so that's at least I'll listen to you then because at least you're you're not agnostic now, but I was about to call it a number. I'm so used to doing that again. If you have any questions type those in red, please in the IRC room and the stick-in chat room.

I know we had someone earlier to have a question, but I think I just missed it. Oh, here we go. I job he's asking do you believe in the historical Jesus? That's a good question.

You know, I was thinking about writing a book about this because I get the question a lot and I Unfortunately get quote didn't exist which I think it's really very what Jesus said and did. Now here's here's where we get into the fun part.

Because quite obviously the infidel guy is a promoter of Bob Price and all these Way out in in the ozone layer writers who actually promote the idea that that Jesus never existed and he's obviously had him on the program and you know, they You know the infidel guy any fact Has no context the all the context of all facts is to substantiate his rebellion against God and his unbelief and so, you know, he'll grab hold of anything so Obviously and you're gonna you can tell this by the end of the program obviously He is taken aback that Bart Ehrman Believes Jesus existed.

He somehow assumed if you're an atheist that you don't you don't believe Jesus existed and. So now what's what is fascinating about this to me is To listen to the argumentation because now Ehrman's gonna be facing a guy who is more liberal than he is more unbelieving than he is.

What kind of arguments is he gonna make to stand his ground? Where he is. And I think you'll find the form of argumentation to be both obvious and highly instructive.

There's any serious the existence of Jesus. Sensational book and make a lot of money. Who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

And so absolutely or so we say a Jesus. Well, I mean because some ideas about this too, right? Like a Jesus Christ itself right just means in what was it means like the anointed one or something?

Well Christ is the Greek word for anointed one. It's the same. It's the Greek equivalent of the word Mashiach in Hebrew when I get Messiah, right?

So basically so so any, you know, Jewish sect that believe that they had that Jesus Christ then. Then that entity would exist so to speak. So I mean, so I guess what I'm saying here I guess I'm going with the maybe the multiple Jesus hypothesis that there might have been a variety of different.

Which is why we have so many different stories. I don't think there was more than one person. I mean, I think really was it. I think there was a historical person Jesus and that we can say some after his death.

So many people told stories and so many different parts of the Roman Empire. It's of Jesus emerged and some of these portraits show up in the gospel.

So that in fact now that's not where the infidel guy is coming from. Okay, just so you know. You know the multiple Jesus saying well This is just a composite story about this mythical person that mythical see and airmen ain't going there because that is Really way out there.

I mean when John Dominic Crossan can look at that and go that's a pretty weird idea. Where'd you get that from then? It's pretty weird. It involves a completely biased Imbalanced historiography. There's no question about that at all.

And so you can see that the infidel guy is starting to go.

What what what what and it's gonna get real interesting. Portrait of Jesus in Luke's gospel is different from the portrait Mark and and different from the one in John and different from the one in the gospel Peter, right?

The gospel of Judas and these are all different portraits.

Okay, what sounds like to me? Well me there's people in a chat right now disagreeing, of course. But they're saying that there really isn't any hardcore evidence though that there's any any Evidence really that Jesus did exist except what people are saying about him.

I think I disagree with that. Really what? Evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed. Well, this is this the same kind of argument apologies used by the way for by the way, oh.

No. Apologists asked the same question. Oh, how could this be? And of course, this is you know, the people in this guy's chat room are gonna be your your standard hardcore Radical atheists who you know again have no real connection with history or anything like that at all.

And so here here here it comes. They like to say the same thing.

You just said just then about. Well, what can ever be evident for a Jew?

I mean, it's just a typical. I mean, it's a historical point.

I mean how to establish the historical existence, right? Well, I guess in the past. I guess it depends on the claims I get right. It depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence at the client society.

There are.

One has to look at historical evidence. And if you if you say that historical evidence doesn't count Then I think you get into huge trouble because then how do you I mean or you know? Abraham Lincoln lived or why not.

And I I mean I think I think these things matter, you know I think it matters what happened in history, right?

Well, what do I like to say the way I like the word it this way because I mean really I think we do have More evidence for those things you mentioned. Then we probably do Jesus Christ, but I like to tell people well What harm would it do?

Because especially the information that you have just now about Even even if there was a Jesus The book of Mark shows us that there was an embellishment way after anyway.

I mean, so I want to know what Jesus really did say, right? You know that that assumes that he really existed and that we can't know. You have to look at the evidence.

But what and what is the evidence. Because even that we cannot know for sure. But I guess you would say look at looking. We can look at the earliest manuscript. Now notice what's going on here.

We cannot know for sure. I Don't know. I shouldn't laugh but but these these radical atheists. Basically unless you have mp3 recordings videotaped from circling satellites Or some kind of time machine then nobody existed in the past and even airmen is going to get somewhat Frustrated and say well, dude, we don't have that kind of evidence for anybody in the past.

What? We were pretty sure they existed, but we don't have that kind of evidence for them. And of course that happens to be the case and so we'll continue Listening to this rather and it's gonna the real interesting parts coming up here because Airman is gonna make an argument regarding Paul and you're gonna see how this all fleshes out.

But we'll continue that right after our break. We'll be right back.

Paul’s Letters as Historical Evidence for Jesus

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a.

Omin .org the history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org. Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program.

The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ. Is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you.

The infidel guy who gets a lot of people's nerves. I've noticed it does me too and it's all because it's just this this breathless. Oh, ah, yeah. Oh anything that can can lead you to unbelief. Haha, that's what drives people nuts, you know, there's there's not the slightest bit of discernment or Understanding is just Anything to help me unbelieve.

Yes. And that drives a lot of people crazy, but anyway Gary we'll get to you in just a moment. I've got some information for you, but I wanted to get to. I want you to hear This portion because here it's coming up where we finally get to what happens when Bart Ehrman.

Runs into a real atheist a date to what around when he should have existed or something or what? What do we have because we don't have anything that exists right until after he died allegedly, right? We're not really under some.

I thought there was some well, I guess so but I thought that there are some Contemporary there are some writers who'd write up. CNN was around they maybe been recording some of those guys. Yeah, that's why I thought maybe people as they existed like with Jesus Caesar.

What they're. But you have anybody from that time talking to us now or we have our ancient record, right?

But again, I'm for Jesus or ancient record, but we don't have any ancient records of anyone who wrote about Jesus while he was alive.

Do we know. Absolutely not and that's the difference. Just. Absolutely, not. Which of course I would to contest since we don't have four bit. We're pretty sure existed I mean just I mean. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

So, I mean, you know, I'm not saying this is a believer. I'm not a believer, but as a historian I'm just saying that you that you. You can't just kind of dismiss it and say well, you know.

Now, you know what this demonstrates to me is that airmen has not really spent any time looking into these radical atheists. That's not his thing. He he's not looking he wasn't looking to you know become their Big star.

He certainly wouldn't be talking like this. He was. But can you can you hear in the laughter in his voice? That's what happens when you encounter a position that you just find to be so ridiculous and so beyond belief.

You've never actually even formulated a response to it. You're actually trying to come up with something on the fly and generally that's how we respond that kind of thing.

We don't know. I mean you have to look at that thing. Okay. I mean, okay.

I mean, I would look for archaeological evidence and as well, for example.

How many people exist in the past that leave archaeological evidence of their specific individual existence? I Mean It's just this. This kind of standard that they try to use is just so absurd. But evidently they live in their own little world and and they don't they don't recognize.

We have one author who actually knew Jesus and knew his. Who's that Paul?

Catch that I I was interested about that. I thought he was gonna say something about Luke or something like that, but Paul Paul and now now remember give you let me give you some background here Ahriman in his the great courses Series on the New Testament.

It's a class that he videotaped that I've listened to it a number of times Takes a position that there are only seven genuine Pauline epistles. The pastorals are out. Ephesians is out Colossians is out.

There are only seven genuine Pauline epistles. So he doesn't even take the ten, you know, just to get rid of the pastorals. Certain doesn't take the the thirteen view. So keeping that in mind that he rejects part of the Pauline corpus he Takes this seven letters position.

Now, how does that work against someone who thinks no letters? I Mean you've got 13 to claim you've got seven that you think are real but on what basis. Do you defend that against someone who says none of them are Pauline?

Or is it just a subjective thing? Listen to how he argues. How do we know that because we have Paul's letters? How do we know he didn't lie about it?

Well, you know the point but there are people there are there people but.

Says things about Jesus as not making a point. It's very important to historian. Historian wants to find disinterested Comments, right. And that's where he says things for example about James the brother of the Lord.

Which is just an off-the-cuff calm because everybody that he's writing to knows who he's talking about. So he just makes the off-the-cuff comment. That's a very important information. Information and that is Bibles now.