Dr Bock,

A guy named Hector Avalos just wrote a book in which he argues that even if we have no doubts about the text as it was in the middle-ages (where the closest chronological copies date to), we can have no idea about what they said before then. According to him too much time passed between the writing and the earliest extant copies. The normal response is, "we'd have to question a lot of history if this standard is used." But that doesn't seem to settle the issue in my mind. What if it does mean we can't know as much as we'd really like to.? What do you think?

In Christ
Derek