Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Bart D. Ehrman


by Leave a comment

The reliability of the gospels: 2010 Ehrman/Evans debate (Pt. II)

In a previous post I commented on the first half of this debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans on the reliability of the gospels. In this post I will be commenting on the second half.

Evans answers the question of eye-witnesses by citing the work of Bauckham and Taylor in support that the gospels can be traced back to those who “heard and observed Jesus”. He is skeptical of the thesis that Jesus sayings arose simply to address doctrinal issues. He notes that there are many debates in the early church (spiritual gifts, the role of women, etc) where a saying of Jesus would be helpful, but none are given. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul sometimes distinguishes between his own views and those based on sayings from Jesus. For Evans it is quite a leap to simply assume that the early church created Jesus sayings from thin air.

Evans emphasizes that the early church did recontextualize (which is different from inventing). Also, citing Papias, he argues that the early church often sought to base their message on tradition. Even if one does not hold to inspiration and/or inerrancy this does not mean that one has to deny the strong historical foundation of the gospels.

Ehrman is now asked (4:06) whether archaeologist and historians use the gospels as sources. Ehrman says of archaeologist that the answer is “flat out no”. He affirms that historians do because there are no other reliable sources and that this creates a problem since even the gospels are not useful documents. He notes that until eighty years after Jesus’ death there is no mention of Jesus in non-Christian sources and that Josephus briefly notes him sixty years after his death.

The only sources on Jesus must be Christian sources. He notes that the earliest source is the Apostle Paul, but that he says very little about Jesus’ life. This leaves us with the gospels.

Ehrman challenges the argument that eye-witnesses could have checked the accuracy of the gospels by citing the geographical breadth of early Christianity. He says that there is no way that eye-witnesses could regulate the evolution of the stories. Therefore, all we have are stories based on oral tradition.

Evans responds next (9:04).

Evans begins by examining whether or not archaeologist use the gospels. He cites the works of archaeologist who often cite the canonical gospels though rarely cite the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel to the Hebrews. This leads back to his assertion that the gospels are shaped by the testimony of eye-witnesses because they go back further to the source than any other gospels. He provides common arguments for early eye-witnesses like the Jewishness of the gospels, real people, real events, real places, real customs, real institutions and offices, real belief systems of others, and so forth.

Ehrman is then asked if the gospels have been accurately preserved over the centuries (6:24). Again, he recalls his testimony of his former beliefs to his current ones. He rightly notes that we do not have the autographs, only copies. He points out that there are many errors across these copies so we cannot know the autographs and that most of our copies are old.

Evans answers that many other textual critics have different views. He himself thinks that the copies, though there are variants/errors/embellishments, come very close to the likely original (even citing Ehrman’s former professor, Bruce Metzger). He discusses some examples, but does not find any major Christian doctrines as being impacted by the variants.

The final question is whether or not scribal errors significantly impact any teaching of Jesus or significant teaching of Jesus? Ehrman cites several sayings of Jesus found only in textual variants. He argues that the variants do matter and that they do impact many of Jesus’ teachings.

Evans responds saying the opposite. He notes the percentages of accuracy given to most translations (e.g. Metzger’s scale). That we can be confident in much of our reconstruction. Yes, some variants by themselves change things (e.g. 1 Jn 5.7), but it takes more than than few passages to alter whole teachings (again, see Evans’ list based on Sanders’ list of things we can confidently say about Jesus as an example).

Ehrman and Evans give their final statements.

_____

Final thoughts: This debate was frustrating on two fronts: (1) Ehrman seemed to be under the impression that this would be more back and forth; Evans seemed under the impression that each were to set forth their previously prepared presentations. (2) Ehrman was asked the question first and Evans second and then the question was set aside. It seemed a tad unfair to both presenters, but I think it gives further justification for Evans ignoring Ehrman’s challenges. Why interact in a way that the format does not allow?

Sadly, some of these questions were not worthy of this style of debate. Ehrman and Evans can only assert things about the texts. They cannot show how this works. In the end, the audience must read more on this themselves.

I do wish Evans would have addressed the issues Ehrman raises. He stuck with his prepared approach and that is fine, but for the untrained it appears he is simply evading Ehrman. On the other hand, Ehrman needs to nuance some things and not present them from such an extreme stance. Yes, there are many variants, but there are many serious textual critics who do not think that the variants cause an infinite chasm between the autographs and our reconstruction.

At best this debate introduces people to the issues. If you read the YouTube comments you find people who think someone “won”. I am not sure that is possible. Neither debated on the same wave length. Ehrman wanted more interaction. I think all viewers would like this but I think Evans rightly noted the format and didn’t play into Ehrman’s attempt to control the discussion.

For those who say of Ehrman he is just a heretic or a showman, I think they ignore that he has been a serious and respected scholar over the years. He makes claims that are often too bold and too black and white, but he is no idiot as some evangelicals assert.

Likewise, those who said things (see the YouTube comments) about Evans not knowing his stuff simply do not know Evans. Evans is well respect and accomplished in the areas he addressed.

About these ads


by 1 Comment

The reliability of the gospels: 2010 Ehrman/Evans Debate (Pt. I)

Robert Cargill posted YouTube videos from a 2010 debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans on the topic of the reliability of the gospels. Rather than write a lengthy comment on his blog I decided that I would split the debate in half and comment a little on each clip on my blog. I welcome you to provide your input here or back over on Cargill’s blog.

The pastor of the church hosting the debate spends some time introducing Ehrman, Evans, and a few other guests. The debate itself begins around the 3:50 mark. The first question asked is, “Are the gospels reliable?” Ehrman is given the floor first.

He briefly rehearses his well-known testimony from fundamentalism to his current position. He asks Evans (1) whether he thinks there are any historical errors in the gospels; (2) if not, how does he explain this as a historian who knows that every historical document has errors; and (3) if he affirms that there are errors what does he deem an error and how we can know if there are not many errors if we affirm any errors.

Ehrman acknowledges that there are historically reliable parts of the gospels, but that a careful reading shows that there are also discrepancies. He points out the differences between the genealogies in the First and Third Gospel; the differences between when Jesus is acknowledged as Messiah in the Second and Fourth Gospels; and a few other differences.

Since Ehrman finds discrepancies great and small he determines that the gospels are unreliable.

Evans is given the floor with the same question and he affirms that the gospels are reliable. He attempts to reframe the question by saying that the gospels are reliable though not like some Christian laity or biblical scholars may want them to be (affirming a statement made by Ehrman in another debate).

Evans points out that both laity and scholars would like to know more about Jesus’ life, but they have to deal with the academic issues related to the time that we do have available. He asks if the gospels tell us what we need to know even if they don’t tell us every thing we would like to know. This would be the very basic gospel message of 1 Cor. 15.1-8 or the apostolic preaching of Acts 2.38.

Evans reframes the discussion by asking if the gospels agree on the simply, basic matters and says that they do. He notes that Josephus’ description of Jesus and early Christians matches the basic historical information we know about Christian origins.

At this point there may be some frustration from viewers because Evans does not answer Ehrman. For those in Ehrman’s corner (see the YouTube comments) this is a sign of weakness, but we must first ask, “Should Evans concede the direction of the debate to Ehrman simply because Ehrman challenged him with some questions?” I don’t think he should. As Jacques Derrida observed that interviews can be misleading because of the artificial atmosphere that seems so natural, and because of the leading questions that seem so simple, so I think Evans would have been mistaken if he had moved away from the point that he wants to make simply because Ehrman wants to go another direction. Ehrman’s questions aren’t simple, innocent challenges. They’re an attempt to control the debate.

When Evans ignores Ehrman’s bait and continues with his own thoughts he challenges Ehrman’s grasp at control. The audience may not like this because once the questions are asked they are also asked by the audience who inadvertently adopts them (Ehrman knows this), but that doesn’t mean Evans was wrong to continue down his own path.

At this juncture (3:41) the moderator asks, “Do the gospels accurately preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ?” Ehrman repeats his challenge to Evans, “Are there discrepancies?” This leads to his argument for the fact that there are sayings of Jesus in the gospels that go back to Jesus himself and then he asserts that some where “made up” by the evangelists. On this assumption, Ehrman asks if the gospels are inaccurate in some things what makes them not inaccurate in more things and if in more things what makes the gospels trustworthy?

Ehrman notes that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus says much about his divinity while he does not seem to be as blunt about it in the Synoptics. Why is this? Ehrman assumes that the fourth evangelist created a Jesus different from history (and he says most critical scholars agree; only conservative evangelicals and fundamentalist disagree).Also, he points out that the narrator of the Fourth Gospel sounds the same no matter who is talking; therefore, how can we trace this back to Jesus?

Let me make an aside here: (1) I think Ehrman goes further than the Fourth Gospel with Jesus’ claims. He asks why Jesus was not stoned to death for claiming to be God. If we read the Fourth Gospel we realize his claims to divinity are very, very nuanced. He claims to be the Danielic Son of Man. If we read Dan. 7 and we ponder the relationship between the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man (as many Jews of that day did) then we see that there seems to be a sense in which the Son of Man is more than human but not quite the same as the Ancient of Days. Or when Jesus claims to be one with the Father, he never says something as absurd as “I am the Father” which would have been a different claim altogether.

That the Fourth Gospel depicts Jesus as the “Word of God” and the “begotten God” (1.1-18) shows the evangelist’s Christological agenda wherein he frames Jesus’ words. Jesus himself didn’t exegete his own sayings like the fourth evangelist did. What we need to avoid doing is assuming that if Jesus said anything like what we find in the Fourth Gospel that it must have been understood as the fourth evangelist understand it. The fourth evangelist depicts plenty of confusion and ambiguity over Jesus’ identity from both the crowds and Jesus’ own disciples.

Also, I don’t know what major point is being made by pointing out that the narrator controls the voice of Jesus and everyone else in the Fourth Gospel. He is right that only fundamentalist and very conservative evangelicals would argue against this. But that says little to the historical roots of the Fourth Gospel. It only shows us that we must acknowledge that like a story teller near a camp fire all of the characters say and act as the evangelist describes them saying and acting.

The moderator returns to Evans at this point (9:08) with the same question. Evans answers that they do. He notes that scholars disagree on various points, but that the central proclamation is agreed upon by scholars.

Evans outlines the basic message of Christ: the Kingdom and rule of God, love of God and neighbor, and so forth. He spends most of his time addressing the Kingdom of God, this statements appearance in the DSS, and how it fit into the message of Jesus. He points out that Jesus’ disciples followed Jesus, this means they should be capable learners who “learn the essence of his message, believe it, practice it, and teach it to others” and not “tape recorders”.

This is Evans way of addressing Ehrman, but it is a round about way. Again, let me say something about how Evans functions in this debate. Ehrman wants it to present a fundamentalist reading of Scripture where every time the original teaching of Jesus is morphed or contextualized it is somehow corrupted. Evans is showing that it is not so black-and-white. We must ask how ancient pedagogy works. Is the recontextualization of the words of Jesus “misquoting” him or recontextualizing him? If recontextualizing then yes, it is hard to reconstruct the original historical setting (it is anyways), but is not the same as misquoting or inventing our thin air. Ehrman seems to think so and he wants to position Evans in such a way that if Evans admits that the evangelist said something Jesus didn’t say (we should nuance as he said it) then this is unfaithful to Jesus. Not true. Every quotation of anyone in any source recontexualizes the original saying. There is a sliding scale of faithfulness, sure, but this is different that the modern “Did he says it like that or not?” approach.

At 3:37 the moderator says of Evans, “Sound like an evangelist.” Cargill points this out to hint in a way that seems to demean Evans, but it should be noted that Ehrman is no less an evangelist. Ehrman embodies his presentation as well and he shows an desire to convince his argument. If one wants an “objective” debate then we need droids on stage, not humans.

Ehrman is asked the next question (3:44), “Do the gospels accurately preserve the actions of Jesus Christ?” He begins by focusing on Evans once again by trying to point out how Evans does not commit to saying what Ehrman says though he thinks Evans seems to agree with him more than he let’s on. He notes that Evans says the evangelist “adapt” the word of Jesus. Ehrman says this equates to “change”. I addressed this above.

Ehrman wonders if the adaptions actually delude the activities of Jesus. The tellings and retellings of the story eventually dilute the accuracy. Ehrman sees discrepancies as evidence that the activities of Jesus cannot be deemed reliable. He goes over a few examples from the gospels where the details, major and minor, seem different.

Ehrman’s main example is that Jesus on the way to his death is silent in the Second Gospel. He notes that Jesus says much in the Third Gospel and some the the First Gospel. Ehrman points out that when people merge the gospels they create their own gospel and he says that this shows lack of trust in any and all of the gospels.

This is true and false. Yes, we should let each gospel tell its story its own way. But we should not reach the same conclusion as Ehrman that because the story is told differently, and because different details are included and excluded for whatever reason, that this somehow equates to radical discrepancies.

Evans is then asked the same question and he affirms that the gospels to accurately relay the deeds of Jesus.

Evans lists seven facts determined by E.P. Sanders about Jesus’ activity “about which we may be relatively confident: (1) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist; (2) Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed; (3) Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve; (4) Jesus confined his activity to Israel; (5) Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple; (6) Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities; and (7) Jesus’ followers continued even after this.

Evans adds (8) the institution of the Lord’s supper and (9) Jesus ate and drank with sinners.

Evans list several criteria that historians evoke in order to show the historicity of this core understanding of Jesus. It should remain apparent that Evans has a script that he brought to the debate and whether or not one wants him to answer Ehrman on Ehrman’s terms he simply will not.

The next question asked of Ehrman is, “Do the gospels contain eye-witness tradition?” Ehrman says he did “before I began my serious scholarship” on the matter. Ehrman then challenges the audience to “use your brain” because “God gave you a brain” (interesting claim for an agnostic). He notes that the gospels do not claim to be written by eye-witnesses and that none of the gospels claim to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Ehrman concludes that the gospels are anonymous and do not contain eye-witness accounts.

He notes that even if there were eye-witnesses, this would mean little for accuracy since eye-witnesses can be wrong. The decades after the gospels were written, that the gospels were written in Greek (Jesus spoke Aramaic), that they were written in different countries (not Galilee or Judea), that they were written based on oral tradition is all evidence that the gospels are not historically reliable documents.

This part ends with Evans being asked the same question. We’ll begin with his answer next time.

If you’ve watched this far what thoughts do you have on the debate? Do you find any particular weaknesses in either presenter’s argument? Do you dislike either presenter’s approach to the debate? 


by 27 Comments

Bart Ehrman has a magical time machine!

"Stupid evangelicals, if only that had a time machine...."

Bart Ehrman has a magical time machine! How do I know? Well, he went back to the first century and he discovered that some biblical books were written with the intent to deceive their readers. In a recent NewsObserver.com article (see here) he says:

“The authors intended to deceive their readers, and their readers were all too easily deceived,” Ehrman writes. “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.”

I don’t think there is any way other than a time machine for Ehrman to know this. How can discover the intent of the author to this degree without going to ask him/her?!How can a modern reader possibly recover that much data from the historical texts that we have available?

Or maybe he is just saying something absurd to get the spotlight because he likes it there so much. This makes more sense than a time machine! Jim West nails it with this response (see full post here):

“Here’s the problem, and here’s where Ehrman turns from academic researcher to publicity seeking deceiver: he cannot POSSIBLY know what intention was operative in the minds of the writers of those texts which eventually became the New Testament. To pretend that he does only demonstrates that he is more interested in saying absurd headline grabbing things than that he interested in and engaged in actual academic pursuits.”

This is what I find baffling about much of modern biblical scholarship. There is so much confidence in historical reconstruction. Historical reconstruction is fine and dandy as an interesting academic discipline full of possible hypotheses, but this deified historicism let’s them think they sit proudly over the church because they know the real meaning of Scripture compared to those ignorant, faith-based readers. Sorry(not really) to say this, but they too have faith in a god. The god of their own historical imaginations.

That or they have a time machine.


by 18 Comments

D.A. Carson Defines ‘Inerrancy’

There is a interesting new website called The Ehrman Project (ehrmanproject.com). It has been designed to engage the popular scholarship of Bart D. Ehrman in the public arena where he has gained so much notoriety. One of the videos that has been posted is one of D.A. Carson defining inerrancy. The definition given is this: “Inerrancy is merely a way of saying that wherever there is a truth claim in fact God’s words are true.” There is much more said to give it context so I recommend hearing all that Carson says.

Watch the video and let me know what you think of Carson’s answer. Also, make sure you visit The Ehrman Project for more interesting videos. I think it is a promising resource.


by 2 Comments

Five Best Reads of 2009

These are the five books that I most enjoyed of those which I read this year:

05. Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

I read part of this book a year or so ago. It was not until I had to do some reading from this book for one of my classes this term that I really began to enjoy it. Ehrman did a few things for me via this book: (1) He peaked my interested in textual criticism. (2) He showed me the value of textual criticism as relates to the study of Christian origins. (3) He showed how important it is to place faith in Christ and not in the Bible (this does not mean one does not affirm the truth of the Bible; it means one’s faith should not stand or fall based on doctrines like inerrancy and inspiration).

Ehrman reaches a lot of conclusions with which I disagree. Often I felt that he read the Bible like a fundamentalist. Nevertheless, I am very glad I read through it.

04. Nicholas Perrin. Thomas: The Other Gospel.

I have never given extra canonical books much interest. It was not until these last few months that I realized how important it is to become familiar with these works and the doctrine found in them. One of those books is the Gospel of Thomas.

I know there are several other important works on Thomas that I hope to read soon, but Perrin’s was enjoyable because you get his perspectives as well as a critical introduction to the works of others like Elain Pagels and April DeConick. Perrin proposes that the original Thomas is a product of Syriac Christianity and it was likely written in Syriac. Even if one is prone to affirm as earlier date for Thomas it is worth reading Perrin’s work because there are some important arguments that must be addressed.

03. N.T. Wright. Justification: God’s Plan, Paul’s Vision.

To put it simply this is a must read book for anyone interested in current trends in Pauline scholarship. While I read this work I read many of the essays in Justification and Variegated Nomism, V. 2. as well as G.P. Waters’ Justification and the New Perspective on Paul. I don’t think I have come away with an opinion on this whole justification discussion, but I have a lot to think about.

02. J.R. Daniel Kirk. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God.

I read this book earlier in the year. One thing that I really enjoyed is this book by Kirk really goes to great lengths to emphasis the importance of the resurrection in Romans. I think many Christians leave resurrection from a Pauline perspective to 1 Corinthians 15. This is wrong. It is central to Pauline theology and as regards Romans this book presents a very convincing argument for reading resurrection as a central theme.

01. Richard Bauckham. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John.

Honestly, I have just begun this book but I find it fascinating. Johannine scholarship has been very creative the last few decades, but I am not sure if it has brought us anywhere. I think Bauckham’s work is an old, familiar tune that needs to be heard once again.


by 1 Comment

Creating a Taste for Textual Criticism

mssromWhenever I read a work by Bart D. Ehrman I find myself suddenly interested in textual criticism. Daniel B. Wallace in an article titled “Challenges in New Testament Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” (JETS 52/1 [March 2009] 79-100) credited Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why as reviving interest in this field of study. I can see why!

There are a few web resources that have brought this field of study back to the forefront of people’s minds once again as well. (1) The “Evangelical Textual Criticism” blog has made textual criticism a “bloggable” topic. (2) The Codex Sinaiticus being placed online for anyone and everyone to view (see here). (3) The Gospel of Judas website by National Geographic allows you to learn a lot about this document by viewing online as well as download high definition pdf documents of the codex.

According to Wallace in the aforementioned article (p. 91) there is an effort underway by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) and the INTF “to take high-resolution digital photographs of all extant Greek NT MSSS and post the images on the Internet”. I wonder what this will do for the field of NT criticism and textual criticism. It will be interesting to see how this “democratizes” such a previously exclusive area of scholarship.


by 10 Comments

Exorcism by Prayer (and Fasting)?

exorcismI remember sitting in my first class on “hermeneutics” as a freshman in college. The college I attended was associated with Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity. Therefore, there was a lot of talk about angelic and demonic beings, spiritual gifts, spiritual warfare, and so forth. It was a great surprise to many of the students sitting in class one morning when our professor noted the textual variant of Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 which are two passages that narrate exorcisms. Since most of us were familiar with the KJV we read these two passages respectively as saying, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” and “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting”. Our professor noted that Mt. 17:21 was not authentic and that the long ending of Mk. 9:29–”by fasting”–was also not part of the original text.

There were some students who did not like this. These passages were used as proof texts that there are times when we might pray for someone who is demon possessed and it will not be enough. Instead, we must be praying but also fasting. I think it was understood that those who fasted often would be prepared to face “this kind” of demonic being. Those who did not fast often would not be ready.

For others it was a great relief because we did not fast enough to be ready for “this kind”. I was one of those who found textual criticism very valuable that day. I always felt guilty because I had a really, really hard time with fasting.

I found it interesting that in Misquoting Jesus Bart D. Ehrman mentions this passage.  He provides an excellent explanation for how and why this passage came to be altered. Let me quote him here:

On occasion scribes modified their texts not because of theology but for liturgical reasons. As the ascetic tradition strengthened in early Christianity, it is not surprising to find this having an impact on scribal changes to the text. For example, in Mark 9, when Jesus cast out a demon that his disciples had been unable to budge, he tells them, “This kind comes out only by prayer” (Mark 9:29). Later scribes made the appropriate addition, in view of their own practices, so that now Jesus indicates that “This kind comes out only by prayer and fasting.”

Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, San Francisco: Harper, 2005. 97.

This is why textual criticism, even as the amateur level such as my own, is worthwhile. There are some who see textual criticism as a bad thing, distorting the word of God or undermining the doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy. But it is not a bad thing at all. As it has been noted before: these variants are there whether or not we acknowledge or ignore them. If we bury our head in the sand in hopes that they will go away so that we can preserve our understanding of the Bible without working through these issues we put ourselves and those we minister to in the church at great risk. It is better to examine the text at whatever level we are trained for the sake of rightly dividing the word of truth. Also, it may help the really skinny ascetic folk in your congregation find joy in eating a nice steak with some mashed potatoes and steamed vegetables!

For more visit the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog.