Mike’s Point #1: Bart is wrong to say Jesus was in despair.
Argumentation Specialist
I tend to agree with your rebuttal to Bart.
Mike’s Point #2: Bart is wrong to say Jesus did not say anything on the way to the cross in the Gospel of Mark.
Argumentation Specialist
Beginning at ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Mike tries to argue against Bart Ehrman that Jesus said nothing on the way to the cross.
Mike says, true, Gospel of Mark does not say Jesus said anything on the way to Golgotha , but Gospel of Mark does not say Jesus or anybody else breathed. Just as it is wrong to conclude nobody breathed because Mark did not say anybody breathed, it is wrong to say Jesus did not say anything on the way to the cross because Mark did not say Jesus said anything on the way to the cross. Mike’s position: You have to allow the author/s of Mark to narrate the story the way he/they want to narrate the story. His narration is not about what Jesus did but what they did to Jesus on the way to the cross.
That’s how you learn to think biblically? Thumb down. Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy (The Case for Christ Is Appealed, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, a New Verdict.)
p/u at 28:47
Winger insists that the gospels are all historically accurate and cannot contradict each other so he must take this silly kind of approach. Interestingly (at least to me) I don’t agree with Prof Ehrman here either. I should have some time this weekend. I will post about it.
Congratulations on posting a video that is not just totally bonkers. Even if I do not agree with everything that Mark Winger says here, I think that this is a valid complaint against Dr. Ehrman, namely that his presentation under question is burdened with a lot of interpretation. (That is, this is not a simple and direct contradiction, as is the disagreement of what day Jesus was crucified.) And I think this kind of argument shows well that Dr. Ehrman is a threat only to those who demand absolute and inerrant interpretation of the Bible. He is, indeed, a very powerful threat to the false binary of people like Sean McDowell, who repeatedly posit that one must believe everything, in every detail, or one must reject everything. That absolute demand cannot withstand close scrutiny (as has often been demonstrated), and the threat is given full power by the evangelical position that it is a binary choice. Unwilling to dismiss the clearly attractive idea of their faith, they cling to an increasingly unsupportable obsession with defending every detail.
Accepting the Bible as chiefly the product of people, mostly men (perhaps with some idea of inspiration from God, as long as one does not take the idea of inspiration too literally), with all of the little problems that are generally inevitable in the products of people, robs most of anti-apologetics of its power. Of course, it also robs much of evangelicalism of its power, so they remain defending their position of inerrancy. And because they cannot accept a more reasonable, mid-way position, they will continue to find themselves backed into corners of silly arguments that merely set time-bombs for creating confirmed atheists.
One reason that Dr. Ehrman is so persuasive is that he avoids the equally absurd positions of extremists like Sam Harris and the mythicists.The power of his positions is generally that they are so eminently reasonable, even if there might be a little leaning from interpretation. Usually, I think it is clear in his arguments where he is giving facts and where he is interpreting, although not always — and this issue in the video may be one such example.
If the Bible has any really useful purpose, it is to serve as a basis for a discussion about the ideas it presents, and not to get consumed by the details. Ultimately, one must actually think and make choices about how we are to live as decent people, whether we do that because we think that is what God wants us to do (admittedly somewhat troublesome since God pretty clearly does not really seem to reward good behavior and to punish bad behavior), or if we don’t believe in God and just prefer the implications of being a decent person (even in a world that is full of unfairness and injustice no matter what we do, and without any concrete assumption of an objective measure, someone watching and at least potentially earning a corresponding reward). And yes, any position of question and doubt is less convenient and comfortable than one of certainty (even when that certainly is often merely false confidence).
Mike’s Point #3: Bart is wrong to say Jesus says nothing on the cross until he asks, Why have you forsaken me?
What’s not mentioned didn’t happen is bad interpretation on Bart’s part.
Argumentation Specialist
Jesus said nothing important to fit Mark’s literary purpose.
Mike is quibbling. Mike is wrong.
Mike’s Point #4: Bart unjustifiably justifies unbelief.
Mike’s Point #5: Bart is wrong to say mockery of Jesus is stronger in Mark than in Luke.
Argumentation Specialist
Mike admits Bart is correct: there are no sympathizers for Jesus in Mark but there are sympathizers in Luke.
Mike’s Point #6: The cry of dereliction
p/u at 40:36
Mike Winger
Psalm 22 – there is future hope here. Don’t just listen to Jesus using the first verse. Jesus is pointing to the whole Psalm 22.
Steefen
So I contacted Mike Winger.
Mike Winger would benefit to read Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell and then covering the book on his youtube channel. An historical accuracy interpretation of the Bible is an important way to improve Christianity. Here is the link to the paperback book. Please read the reviews:
dchild=1&keywords=historical+accuracy+by+steve+campbell&qid=1626892701&sprefix=Historical+Accuracy+by+Ste%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1
Here is a book trailer for Historical Accuracy:
Thank you. Let’s improve the quality of the Christian experience.
Steve Campbell
Steefen
Mike Winger is convinced Bart Ehrman is misleading people. He even prays at the end of his video.
Bart Ehrman has been questioned before about misleading people but said he does not believe he is misleading people.
(I vaguely remember him saying it was a brother-in-law who questioned him. Bart posted about it. That is what I am vaguely remembering.)
Early in the video, Winger claims that Dr. Ehrman says that the gospels are “contradictory and nonsense.” It is probably fair to say that Dr. Ehrman claims that there are contradictions in the gospels, and that he demonstrates several pretty clearly. Where does Dr. Ehrman say that they are nonsense? While he might find supernatural claims personally unpersuasive, it seems to me that Dr. Ehrman is usually mostly silent on purely theological questions, and does not broadly mock people who believe in Christianity. It is only those who demand innerrancy in the Bible who might fall into the nonsense charge.
JAS said
Early in the video, Winger claims that Dr. Ehrman says that the gospels are “contradictory and nonsense.” It is probably fair to say that Dr. Ehrman claims that there are contradictions in the gospels, and that he demonstrates several pretty clearly. Where does Dr. Ehrman say that they are nonsense? While he might find supernatural claims personally unpersuasive, it seems to me that Dr. Ehrman is usually mostly silent on purely theological questions, and does not broadly mock people who believe in Christianity. It is only those who demand innerrancy in the Bible who might fall into the nonsense charge.
To me, sometimes if information is contradictory, by nature, it is nonsense.
JAS said
Congratulations on posting a video that is not just totally bonkers. Even if I do not agree with everything that Mark Winger says here, I think that this is a valid complaint against Dr. Ehrman, namely that his presentation under question is burdened with a lot of interpretation. (That is, this is not a simple and direct contradiction, as is the disagreement of what day Jesus was crucified.) And I think this kind of argument shows well that Dr. Ehrman is a threat only to those who demand absolute and inerrant interpretation of the Bible. He is, indeed, a very powerful threat to the false binary of people like Sean McDowell, who repeatedly posit that one must believe everything, in every detail, or one must reject everything. That absolute demand cannot withstand close scrutiny (as has often been demonstrated), and the threat is given full power by the evangelical position that it is a binary choice. Unwilling to dismiss the clearly attractive idea of their faith, they cling to an increasingly unsupportable obsession with defending every detail.Accepting the Bible as chiefly the product of people, mostly men (perhaps with some idea of inspiration from God, as long as one does not take the idea of inspiration too literally), with all of the little problems that are generally inevitable in the products of people, robs most of anti-apologetics of its power. Of course, it also robs much of evangelicalism of its power, so they remain defending their position of inerrancy. And because they cannot accept a more reasonable, mid-way position, they will continue to find themselves backed into corners of silly arguments that merely set time-bombs for creating confirmed atheists.
One reason that Dr. Ehrman is so persuasive is that he avoids the equally absurd positions of extremists like Sam Harris and the mythicists.The power of his positions is generally that they are so eminently reasonable, even if there might be a little leaning from interpretation. Usually, I think it is clear in his arguments where he is giving facts and where he is interpreting, although not always — and this issue in the video may be one such example.
If the Bible has any really useful purpose, it is to serve as a basis for a discussion about the ideas it presents, and not to get consumed by the details. Ultimately, one must actually think and make choices about how we are to live as decent people, whether we do that because we think that is what God wants us to do (admittedly somewhat troublesome since God pretty clearly does not really seem to reward good behavior and to punish bad behavior), or if we don’t believe in God and just prefer the implications of being a decent person (even in a world that is full of unfairness and injustice no matter what we do, and without any concrete assumption of an objective measure, someone watching and at least potentially earning a corresponding reward). And yes, any position of question and doubt is less convenient and comfortable than one of certainty (even when that certainly is often merely false confidence).
This is just such a wonderful post, and captures so many of my thoughts about Dr. Ehrman’s critiques and positions.
In his repeated focus on inerrancy, Dr. Ehrman is clearly battling what seems to be the younger, Evangelical version of himself. Growing up a Catholic in Southern California in the 1980s, the concept of biblical inerrancy is just completely foreign to me; not only was I never taught it as dogma, I couldn’t even tell you what it meant.
So, for a non-Evangelical, the effort to “errorize” the bible is not only uncontroversial, but seemingly unnecessary. As I’ve grown older and looked more deeply into these matters, I am more fascinated by what NT documents appear to get right, rather than what they got wrong. So, while Dr. Ehrman’s contributions are invaluable, I am nonetheless often left scratching my head by (what I perceive as) Dr. Ehrman’s rather dogmatic conclusion about the fallibility of certain aspects of the NT texts. Two examples of this I like to cite are Dr. Ehrman’s rather strident opinions that Jesus was not buried following his execution and that the gospel of “Mark” referred to by Papias is an entirely different ancient work than the gospel of Mark we have today.
Robert said
vergari said
… I am nonetheless often left scratching my head by (what I perceive as) Dr. Ehrman’s rather dogmatic conclusion about the fallibility of certain aspects of the NT texts. Two examples of this I like to cite are Dr. Ehrman’s rather strident opinions that Jesus was not buried following his execution and that the gospel of “Mark” referred to by Papias is an entirely different ancient work than the gospel of Mark we have today.
I guess it is a matter of individual perception, and I for one do not find Bart to be dogmatic or strident. Just to give a few examples:
My view now is that we don’t know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’ body. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am not saying that this proves that Jesus was not given a decent burial. But I am saying that if he was (unless someone knows of more evidence that is escaping me?), it would have been highly unusual and exceptional and so must strike us as historically improbable. But I am completely open to being persuaded otherwise! ** you do not have permission to see this link **
One of those traditions [relating to Jesus’ resurrection], which the resurrection narrative itself presupposes, is that Jesus received a decent burial, either from members of the Sanhedrin or by one of their prominent members, Joseph of Arimathea. As a historian, I do not think we can say definitively that this tradition is unconditionally and certainly false; I think it is too much to say that we know, for example, that Jesus was eaten by dogs. On the other hand we certainly do not know that the tradition is true, and there are, in fact, some very compelling reasons to doubt it. I personally doubt it. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
This ** you do not have permission to see this link ** from Dr. Ehrman quite nicely exemplifies his rather strident position here — one that I think it’s fair to say is not open to contrary arguments or even evidence. He performs intellectual gymnastics to interpret all historical information, no matter how contrary to his view, in such a way so as to align with his pre-existing opinion about burial. In this sense, it’s rather absurd for Dr. Ehrman to be soliciting argumentation to change his views — “am completely open to being persuaded otherwise” — when they are so clearly not susceptible to change on this issue.
By the way, Dr. Ehrman flip-flopped on the historicity of the burial in the early part of the 2010s — right around the time that William Lane Craig was debating the new atheists, and repeatedly citing Dr. Ehrman on the historicity of the burial. I’d be willing to bet quite a bit of money that it was Craig’s use of Ehrman’s work in this regard which prompted his flip-flop.
In his repeated focus on inerrancy, Dr. Ehrman is clearly battling what seems to be the younger, Evangelical version of himself. Growing up a Catholic in Southern California in the 1980s, the concept of biblical inerrancy is just completely foreign to me; not only was I never taught it as dogma, I couldn’t even tell you what it meant.
Nothing seems like a problem if it’s not our problem of course. Then perhaps you aren’t aware that tens of millions of Americans are still brought up believing that the Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God. Americans whose beliefs influence the political and social policy of this nation. The movement against LGBT rights, Covid anti-vaxxers, Climate Change deniers, Fringe racist and conspiracy groups are all subsets of this demographic. Prof Ehrman hardly invented this stuff.
Two examples of this I like to cite are Dr. Ehrman’s rather strident opinions that Jesus was not buried following his execution and that the gospel of “Mark” referred to by Papias is an entirely different ancient work than the gospel of Mark we have today.
Strident? You tend to attack someone’s “tone” when you have no response to their arguments. Do you understand why scholars question the historicity of the Empty Tomb? Why Papias is thought unreliable?
Your psychologizing is rather silly.
vergari said
Stephen said
Do you understand why scholars question the historicity of the Empty Tomb?
Are you now claiming that the denial of the burial of Jesus of Nazareth is a widely held belief by biblical scholars?
It is debated. There are serious issues with a straightforward historical reading of the Empty Tomb. If you think that Ehrman is some fringe outrider on this subject you should investigate further. (Of course you should investigate further anyway because it’s a very interesting subject.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert