Official Transcript: Kloha-Montgomery Debate on the Philosophies of Biblical Textual Criticism

Brothers of John the Steadfast is pleased to make available the full transcript of the recent debate between Dr. James Warwick Montgomery and Dr. Jeffrey J. Kloha. The debate took place on Saturday, October 15, 2016 at the Chapel of Our Lord Concordia University Chicago River Forest. We are especially grateful to Ms. Ginny Valleau for her attentive editing and preparation of the final transcript.

 

About this transcript

This transcript is an “intelligent transcription” of the debate. It is verbatim except where speech tics have been removed or sentence fragments edited for clarity and ease of reading. Where specific words were inaudible or unclear, or when there were gaps in the recording, the debate participants were consulted. Dr. Kloha declined to review the transcript. He requested that interested individuals refer to his full paper, prepared for the event and made available online and at the event. Dr. Montgomery did review the transcript and corrected transcription errors affecting his presentation. When the speaker referenced a visual element it is noted in square brackets [ ].

View the transcript below, or click to download it (PDF)

 

   It appears you don’t have a PDF plugin for this browser. Use the link above to access the PDF file.

 


Comments

Official Transcript: Kloha-Montgomery Debate on the Philosophies of Biblical Textual Criticism — 1 Comment

  1. Textual criticism and the transmission of the texts of the Bible, and in particular the New Testament texts of the Bible, is becoming a more and more focal point in apologetics. This is an area that the Lutheran Church needs to begin to weigh in on more and more. I think the Reformed apologists are really doing a pretty decent job at addressing issues of textual criticism and transmission of the scriptures brought up mainly by atheists and muslims. However, I don’t see many Lutheran apologists in general, and Lutheran apologists that address this issue in particular. We need to get on this band wagon.

    Anyway, I did have a hard time trying to identify the question that was being debated. Did they outline a specific question being debated? I did not see one in the introduction. I am assuming from scanning the opening statements that one side is arguing that we cannot speak to whether the scriptures are inspired because we don’t have the autographs (kind of a Bart Ehrman argument), and the other side is attesting that we CAN know what the scriptures say in the autographs or come very close and still maintain a doctrine of inspiration. Is this a rough outline of the question being asked? Will try to spend some more time going through this in detail later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.