Loading...I recently received this query by a blog member, and it’s a question I often get, both on the blog and off. I’m hoping that maybe you yourself have some wisdom on it. How do you talk about historical and literary problems (contradictions!) of the Gospels to people who are convinced the Bible has no problems at all?
Here the question is articulated very well. What’s your experience and judgment? Let us know what you think!
******************************
QUESTION from a blog reader:
I’m fairly knowledgeable about the historical Jesus. When I find myself discussing the gospels with Christians who are not, I’m always tempted to lead with statements that certain things are not accurate: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t actually write the gospels; the four source hypothesis; contradictions in accounts by the gospels; no post-resurrection appearances in the original version of Mark; etc.
This seems like a needlessly negative approach to an informal discussion. Christians most often automatically react that I’m asserting some sort of superiority and even dogmatism over them.
Do you have any suggestions about how to approach and begin discussions like this? The best way I can think of is to start with important things that are thought to be historically accurate, eg, apocalypticism; the proclamation of the kingdom of god; the relationship of Jesus’s other teachings and actions to that proclamation; the great commandment; etc. I suppose I could go from there to how other things were meant to evoke faith in Jesus rather than to be factual accounts.
Or maybe just start out with the fact that for three hundred years “scientific” historians have been working out what probably happened and didn’t happen?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
As a kid in Bible study, Paul drove me crazy. I thought, here was a perfectly good religion presented to humanity by God’s son and Paul had to go and change it. Paul’s revelations are about as believable as Joseph Smith’s. And the fact that the original Apostles disappear from the story rang alarm bells then and now. I saw Paul’s Christianity as only superficially related to Jesus’s religion. In short, I would ask if Paul’s Christianity is what Jesus had in mind.
If you’re willing to accept the Jewish perspective you can ask, what are the reasons Jews don’t accept Christianity?
I agree: it is very difficult indeed to see Paul as advocating the same message that Jesus himself preached. My sense is that most Jews in antiquity thought that a crucified criminal was the very *antithesis* of a messiah, and so considered the Christian claims to be ludicrous, if not balsphemous.
Paul comes across to me as a very constantly self aggrandizing status insecure narcissist. If he had met Jesus and learnt at his feet, he’d still invent Paul’s version of him. Paul always had to be, uniquely chosen uniquely special, uniquely insightful.
I wonder if anyone reading his complicated contradictory mess of a theology in the first century ever thought “it probably shouldn’t be this hard to figure out how to be saved, and if it is we’re probably doing it wrong”
The question seems to be how to start a debate assuming he/she knows better and has understood possible the deeper questions within what the reader calls “historical”. I don’t understand the question as just talking about problematic/contradictary topics or verses in the texts with believers.
I just got a vague feeling that it reflects a condescending approach.
Why do you want to engage believers concerning problems in scripture in the first place? Many Christians, especially those of the evangelical persuasion, have been taught since childhood that every word of scripture was inspired by God and any problems with scripture are not really problems with scripture but with our limited understanding of God and His ways. In defense, they might point to Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and decisions and how unfathomable and untraceable are His ways!” In addition, they tend to be emotionally invested in their belief system and, as we’ve seen since January 6, 2021, beliefs, when strongly tied to deep-seated emotions, take precedence over facts. So, to answer your question, if someone were to ask me about problems in scripture I would answer to the best of my ability; but, I would never be the one to bring it up. To me, it’s an exercise in futility.
You could gently challenge the notion that imperfect scripture is a reflection on a perfect god.
Why assume the bible is perfect? Does believing that being any REAL benefits?
It could be pointed out that the bible hasn’t really helped in stopping Christianity from branching out into diverse belief systems.
If it was so clear Christianity would probably much more cohesive across the board.
I think Christians who quietly feel they have a relationship with Jesus rather than being biblical literalists probably have a better time.
I love it… “Why do you want to engage believers in the first place?” Most Christian that I know.. including the person I used to be… didn’t need evidence, scriptural corroboration, or sense. We just needed to have our community and our programs and our entertainment. It was our drug of choice. Most smokers know the dangers of smoking more than non smokers…but they still smoke. It’s not about lung cancer, its about the current stress relief.
Well said,BarryWilson,I concur. I think today we are too focused on debating whose right or wrong and it leads to hatred/division. As Bart often says, “people can believe whatever they want”. If their beliefs makes them feel good,who/why am i to disprove them? I think that over the years, Christianity/Religion has built up a strong moral/ethical view on how to live and many are quite content to conform.
I agree, Barry. Arguing doesn’t persuade — it just makes both sides more dogmatic. If someone brings up a religious topic, however, a less contentious approach to arguing is to say, “I used to believe the Bible was God’s truth and nothing but, just the way you do. Then I learned that….
Though I’ve had a lot of success in this area, I’ve found there are no easy answers here. Among the people that are going to feel threatened by a challenge to their warm and cozy belief bubble, there are some whose curious nature will begin to open to the possibilities, while others’ #1 priority is to keep their convictions intact. It has taken me years to get to the point that I can actually call a passage in scripture not historical, or wrong, or horrible from the pulpit, without getting blasted for it. I think, first, it helps if the people you are talking to see you as a Christian, since, ultimately, this is going to boil down to credibility, and among the problematic people, if it doesn’t come from a Christian source, it is likely “from the Devil”. Second, it helps to first affirm what is good about the person’s belief; you can almost always find something. Then, instead of pulling the belief rug out from under them, insert some thought provoking questions into your dialogue, giving them the opportunity to try to answer the questions themselves…this helps to get them thinking.
I think that’s good advice. It’s also a good way to approach political discussions. A frontal assault, however, elicits defensiveness and digging in.
Using the term “science” or especially “follow the science” is not a good idea. With Covid that’s perceived by many as a politically motivated, figurative gun to the head.
In my experience the approach that has a chance of working is to speak in terms of myself and my beliefs about the Biblical inerrancy, and why I hold those beliefs. That is less threatening and less likely to be perceived as attacking others beliefs.
Sometimes it works, sometimes I’m pitied for being eternally damned, or I get prayed for. I’ve convinced some that the Bible is not inerrant, but never a fundamentalist, only those already questioning.
For me, Mark 9-1 by itself denies Bible as inerrant, and is proof Jesus was not divine, especially in the context of Jesus’ specific vision of the end times. (See? Not attacking others beliefs)
For me, it is impossible to discuss religion and/or politics with family and friends. In the past such efforts had us concerned we could cause a stroke! It isn’t even worth trying at our stage in life though my sister and her husband (a brother to me in most every sense of the word) despair over my not being with them in heaven. I dare not let myself relax with a glass of wine with them as that gives an opportunity to try again to get me on the straight and narrow.
Judith: I totally understand this. I am learning the hard way that it’s not the wisest thing to let certain people in my circle know about my deconversion or deconstruction. We just need to play nice and avoid those kind of conversations. Maybe it is more loving if I let people assume I’m still Christian. Most people don’t ask and don’t check. I have a sister, and she knows I don’t go to church and on occasion that has bothered her, but I haven’t brought up the total deconversion with her. It’s could be obvious, if she wanted to pursue the subject further. But she doesn’t. So maybe it’s better if I just weed her garden, play cards with her and help her wash dishes. I’m not keeping it a secret. I am very open about my journey on my blogs. But they don’t read them. I feel authentic and safe at the same time. Maybe I’m just one of the lucky ones.
This is a good and difficult question. If one’s goal is to argue someone out of the faith, I would say don’t waste your time. When I was committed to the Christian faith, like Bart, I could find answers to all problems without being shaken, even though such answers were often times unreasonable. It is important to remember that most people were not ‘reasoned’ into the faith so it’s difficult to ‘reason’ them out. On the other hand, if your goal is to just maintain relationships with your Christian family members or friends, I recommend just humbly sharing your own journey and struggles with accepting certain truth claims and why … IF THEY ASK. I also like to make sure I let them know I could be wrong. I have found this approach to build trust which opens a portal for further conversation.
I like your approach. When my missionary son-in-law offers me a Christian book, I happily accept it and usually read it. It gives me a chance to read a different perspective. I also write and post a book review on GoodReads evaluating the book and noting its flaws.
If one comes at these conversations from the position of “I’m knowledgeable about the historical Jesus and you’re not”, well, it’s pretty much doomed to failure from the get-go.
Perhaps a better approach would be to avoid asserting your knowledge, i.e., play dumb. Ask questions about what you perceive as contradictions, but do so from a position of humility. Show respect for their faith but keep probing. It is sometimes possible (emphasis on *sometimes*) to lead a person to a new awareness by asking questions and letting their own answers get them there. But it is rarely successful to lay siege to faith with facts.
My strategy is I don’t talk to believers about them because “I know how obstinately those prejudices stick in the mind that the heart has embraced in the form of piety” (Spinoza, TTP, Preface §15). It is a very sad day when large swaths of people worship ink on paper more than they worship the immortal God.
The more mature evangelicals like Licona accept a watered down form of “innerrancy”, which is really just a belief in the supreme (but certainly not unquestionable) *authority* of Scripture. His view is so out of mainstream evangelicalism that he got fired from Houston Baptist Theological Seminary and got horribly grilled by Norman Geisler over a series of articles. Dr. Ehrman, if you want cards to play at your next Licona debate, I seriously recommend playing this to discredit him with evangelicals. He calls you a trash historian for personally not believing that death was reversed after three days in a bodily and not a ghostly fashion and that an immortal man levitated into heaven to eternally live with God afterwards, so why not bring his personal beliefs about Scripture to light which are actually so very public although most evangelicals are not aware?
I think I did last time. He doesn’t believe the “zombies” passage is historical and does think there are contradictions.
Is there a reference in the Hebrew Bible that is similar to the zombies passage in the NT?
Nope.
If I find people with a firm belief I’m non-committal and stay away from any religious topic, or try to say something that derails the conversation if it’s going in that direction. If I detect the slightest bit of doubt I am quick to offer positive reinforcement, nod, agree, Say something like: that’s a great point! Interesting! Then mention other things as troubling to me, and maybe name a book or two and indicate I found them helpful. And I never give the impression of being an atheist or even agnostic or hostile, just a “truth-seeking believer”. That’s at least partly true, the truth-seeking part, at least.
I was raised in a strict fundamentalist sect wherein the only means to salvation was a proscribed one-time, “born again.” “personal Savior” experience. Those who do not have this experience are not true Christians and therefore doomed to eternal torment. I tried to have this experience but couldn’t seem to pull it off and eventually wound up leaving home, joining the military and embarking on a 30-year guilt trip. It took that long to finally and completely set aside the teachings of my youth. My entire immediate family and much of my extended family are still entrenched in those fundamentalist beliefs. Nonetheless I still have good relations with them, probably in large part because we never discuss our differences. If I was to have a discussion with them I would never initiate it but would attempt to answer any questions as best I could respectfully and humbly, and based solely on the work of respected Biblical scholars, not logic or common sense. It probably wouldn’t work anyway, at best it might plant a seed. One has to discover the folly of their beliefs on their own.
My friends know I do not share their faith but that I still respect many of the teachings of Jesus. They normally start trying discussions to win me back to “faith.” Recently I have thrown in the hand-grenade of 1 Timothy 2:15 “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition. And ask them how that lines up with the teachings of Jesus on salvation. Some come back to discuss further; others avoid me like the plague. I am not sure this is the best way, but I hid my doubts for too long and Christians need to see the harm some of these teachings cause.
Perhaps some open-ended questions ; “What do you think of the original ending of Mark? Isn’t it strange?” Or, “Who do you think went to the tomb that morning?”
Re: “…apocalypticism; the proclamation of the kingdom of god…
As a committed Christian, I find this list annoying. If you want to talk to us Christians without offending us, please try to respect and work within our ordinary ways of speaking.
Are you not aware that Christians capitalize “God” in the phrase “kingdom of God”?
As far as I know, the word “apocalypticism” is a word most ordinary Christians don’t care about. It is a confusing word. For example, the Wikipedia page begins with a dubious definition of “apocalypticism” that is new news to me: “Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one’s own lifetime.” I doubt people who believe “the end of the world is coming soon” would describe themselves by saying, “I believe in apocalypticism.”
Please try to lead with our language as we Christians use it.
Also, people these days often describe something horrible as apocalyptic, the complete opposite of the original, positive meaning. However, I don’t deny that horrible things are described in the lead up to the unveiling of the Kingdom of God.
Dr Ehrman,
Do you think Paul’s Christology changed overtime? Or do you think it was pretty much the same in all his letters (at least the undisputed ones)?
I don’t think we can clearly trace any development, but that’s not the same as saying it *didn’t* develop…. I guess it’s saying we don’t know if or how it did.
Struggling with this myself. A lot of these evangelicals will condescendingly insult my own Lord and Prophet to my face, apply selective rigor and moral checklist to the proofs of my faith they wouldn’t come close to applying to their own and smugly act as if the foundations of their fundamentalism haven’t been shredded by critical scholarship.
I think what’s possible is going in depth as to what we personally perceive are the internal issues of the Christian Bible, the misquotes of the Hebrew Bible, the internal major and irreconcilable contradictions, the bizarre contradictory mess of what the crucifixion is supposed to represent, the mess of how to extract the Nicene creed from the biblical writings of those who didn’t believe in it, which gospel version of events should we believe in x instance etc. Does Paul preach what Jesus did? Pose these questions and explain this is my stumbling block to accepting your “good news.” Then move along (but not without sharing this fun stuff with my co-religionists to innoculate them from Christianity)
They won’t listen unless they’re open but they will get frustrated especially if they’re probably harboring internal doubt like Mike Licona.
Bart, would you say historical theology or the study of the historical development of Christian theology is significant? If so, why? What can we gain as people interested in studying New Testament from such a subject?
Yup, I”ve devoted a good bit of my scholarly life to it. What those interesetd in the NT gain from it is an appreciation that many, many later Christian doctrines developed much later and are not part of the NT itself, even doctrines that Christians take for granted and just assume are in the Bible (from the Trinity to heaven and hell to … lots of things!)
I think there’s a few things : first of all, you need to size up the situation and the people themselves. Some folks just won’t ever hear an alternate perspective or opinion, let alone actually change. I think also introducing the field of Biblical scholarship as something worth pursuing – maybe lend them some of your books, and present them in a non threatening way : say things like “these books I found quite interesting, you may wish to take a look, no problems if you disagree with them. Biblical scholars themselves often disagree with each other.” Also, present your experiences in a positive light, things like “I found that going more deeply into the history of the Bible and Christianity did not weaken my faith, it actually strengthened it etc.” Christianity has survived 2000 years of hostility, disagreement, competition etc. I’m sure it can survive a little opinion swapping between sensible adults. I think it also helps not to come across as a know it all. Try to present yourself as a seeker of knowledge – you don’t know that much, and like everyone else you’re just trying to figure it out.
Sometimes all this will have no effect, sometimes it may plant a seed that will take a long time to grow.
It’s not just the history and the form that’s problematic, it’s the content.
Asking people who lived two to three thousand years ago for advice on how to live today is going to get you some strange answers.
Leviticus: no rare steaks. And don’t even get me started on cheeseburgers. No sausage McMuffins either… but you can eat crickets. (God stifles a laugh. What’s that, Moses? No I’m not just keeping the good stuff for myself.) Also, if you sleep with a female slave who has been promised to someone else, it’s not a big deal, just bring a ram by my tent and slaughter it and we’re good.
But for the important stuff, like eating rare steaks, follow these laws or I will straight up force you to eat your own children. Pardon? Lev. 26:28. So, which laws of God have you broken this week?
There’s plenty of bad advice in the New Testament though too – Mark 16:16 – believe in me, drink poison, and you’ll be fine. That one’s a cult classic.
Is there a passage that you find so wildly offensive that you enjoy getting others to try to defend it?
Well, I’m pretty offended by the views of women in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for starters.
Many cult leaders use that passage for control!
Back to the questionable content, here’s a basic premise – why worship a god that kills kids to make a point? The flood. Slaughtering the Egyptian firstborns. Jericho. (Kids to the sword, but spare the prostitutes – is this scripture or Game of Thrones?) Sending a she bear to rip apart dozens of little kids who call Elisha bald. Even if you’re bored and just trying to win a bet with your heavenly colleague – who you seem to have quite the office rivalry with – don’t murder children to test a good man’s faith and then send him replacement children when you win – terrible apology gift. (Job.) Seems like repeatedly murdering children should be a disqualifier for worship in this century.
My first “problem” with the gospels is not with the gospels per se. The key issue is getting (Bible revering) believers especially to acknowledge that we are not just talking about critical assessment of the origins & reliability of biblical text. This is, in fact, an enquiry which represents an existential threat to their way of thinking & way of life. That is not a statement of position, or of personal view, or of bias. It is a fact, albeit awkward if honesty prevails.
Again, the next “problem” is not particularly with the gospels. The issue is to admit that God is not the church, and the church is not God. “Yes”, all believers would say, but they are now suspicious about where this is leading. What we call “the gospels” (as opposed to many other ancient texts & gospels), and even the entire biblical text is only “the Bible” because the church decreed so, by dogma. And this continues unadmitted & uninspected to this day, with the Bible revered as a magical book (arbitrary collection of texts), although verses can be quoted prohibiting magic & divination.
Face these two matters and then gospel problems might be considered constructively.
I agree with the sentiments expressed here about not discussing it at all with believers.
The problem is that at times religion is forced upon us in the form of politics.
At those times it is important to express what Richard Dawkins called “ militant atheism “
I was driving my brother in law to an NHL game one day and was astonished to hear that he honestly believed that at one time giant people roamed the earth, that the sea did part and an entire army was swallowed up….it was useless to discuss these topics with him
I think in certain relationships it’s totally futile. There are believers who have a questioning mind by nature and might find it interesting, but you probably have to know people really well before you’d know which is which. Or it could be determined by the venue? Like you might assume people are curious if you meet them at a fundamentalist/atheist debate or whatever.
I mean I was raised fundamentalist, but was constantly looking for more answers to my questions. I found out at a young age my mother was not someone who wanted me asking those questions. Nothing is likely to change in that situation, and I’d be foolish to expect it to.
I usually do. not. It is just too frustrating and I usually think less of the person in the end. If a person is serious, I usually suggest one of Bart’s or Tabor’s books. There is enough there for them to figure it out if they are intellectually honest.
The best approach is just to respect each other’s opinion. You cannot convince a fundamentalist nor a skeptic the same way you can’t convince a conservative nor a liberal on their opinion on Trump’s wall.
I think life may be too short to expend much of it in the way that is suggested. Of course, it may be more complicated for you due to your field of expertise and teaching situation.
It is very difficult to have an open discussion with Christians who only receive their information from the pulpit on Sundays. I was with a group once where it was mentioned that the books in the Bible are not in chronological order. This was hard for some to accept but the idea of Mark being the first gospel and Paul’s writings being written before any of the gospels was too much! My experience is that most Christians do not want to hear about Bible contradictions and if one is mentioned, they want to hear the work around that makes it not a contradiction.
When I was growing up in the church, it was stated many times from the pulpit that no one needs to read anything except the Bible. If you read a commentary book, you could be led astray!
Later this was adjusted to being told that books written by certain authors within our denomination could be read with caution!
Pulpit preaching relays the message that the Bible is the inspired word of God with no contradictions. It seems that very few can grow up hearing this message over and over and be able to have an open mind for discussions.
Here is the best way to do this: Have the person read Dr. Ehrman’ textbooks and then read all of his trade books in the order in which they were written. Then, have him/her go to the “Apologetics Press” website and read the articles describing “alleged discrepancies” in each of the books of the New Testament. Then, have the person contrast the differences between Dr. Ehrman’s approach with the approach of this website.
In all honesty, like with politics, people are only going to be persuaded about something if their most respected sources say it, in this case their priest or minister or pope. The nature of the source is much more important than the evidence. For example, I once had some very long discussions with a friend about books about global warming and my friend’s position that global warming was a hoax remained unchanged until the pope said what he said about the issue. Then, all of a sudden, global warming became an issue for my friend.
My Grandson called me last night, he had stumbled on the book of Enoch, he asked why this book wasn’t in the bible. He has grown up in a conservative fundamentalist home, he is 21 now. It was a good conversation although his point of view is quite different from mine. I planted some seed regarding the historical view regarding the bible, will be interesting to see where this goes. I’m sure his father and mother (my oldest daughter) would be less than thrilled with what I shared. I am sure my son-in-law will never see this comment so here is an example of how fundamental they are(were). My daughter almost divorced him because he thought my wife was going to hell, her sin, she had short hair. Thanks Paul. Thru this ordeal I got the picture of a person holding a gun, not just any gun but a “Go to Hell” gun. Anyone not lining up with their interpretation of what the bible said got shot with the “Go to Hell” gun. Thankfully they worked thru that. It is a bit hard to be open where I am.
Very disturbing stuff!!
I have more trouble discussing the New Testament with my fellow atheists. Christians hold fast to the “truth” of the Gospels however they characterize the truth (literally interpretation, only the good stuff, etc.). I find few interested in the historical aspects – they look to the NT to support their faith. Nonbelievers tend to get angry about even taking the Gospels seriously as a discussion topic. My sense of that stance is that Christianity has perpetrated too many horrors during the course of Western Civilization (e.g., inquisitions), and nowadays, nonbelievers are often treated rudely (such as unfriended on social media), even angrily (look at the MAGA crowd) that atheists are so against Christianity they won’t even engage. I am an atheist but have a robust historical curiosity (how did Christianity happen and how did it take over our culture). I enjoy this blog because we look at all aspects of Christian history, not just the atrocities (Catholic – Protestant, Catholic – Orthodox wars, virulent anti-Semitism, homophobia, restriction of women’s rights, other forms of exclusion), though I have a harder time characterizing the positives.
Dear Dr. Bart
I have been watching your debates on youtube and i wonder why whenever they try to conciliate Mathew and Luke’s narratives of Jesus birth, you never mention the 12 year gap between the 2? Afterall, Quirinius only became governor at 5-6 AC, 10 years after King Herod’s death. Ad 2 years to those 10 that are related to the slaughter of under 2 y boys and makes 12.
I read that Mary was 12 and Joseph 90 when they married, are there any historic evidences that confirm this?
I often do, but not in quite those words. In Luke Herod is the King, but Quirinus is the governor of Syria. I point out that’s a ten year discrepancy. And no, we have no record of their ages. Mary would have been young, since that was the custom: as soon as a girl could bear children, she was married off. We have no clue about Joseph. Someone’s just makin’ that up. Not to many nonogenarians in the world at that time….
Fundamentalists-Evangelicals have their half dozen verses or so that prove their beliefs. Trying to show them otherwise is for the most part a futile effort
If you’re starting from the fact that the conclusion of 300 years of scholarship on what precisely happened 2000 years ago is qualified by “probably,” you’ll have a tough row to hoe.
Although I am a lapsed Catholic I have family members from my dad’s side who are fundamentalist Christians (Baptists) and their intolerance of anyone outside Protestant fundamentalism (including me) was so unsettling that I have to admit to being repelled by their intolerance and their political self-righteousness. Aside from intolerant fundamentalists, talking to open-minded Christians has been something I’ve enjoyed. But I go into those conversations with the expectation that I will be respectful of their faith and the hope that both parties are willing to listen and learn.
But never try this with fundamentalists!! Their rigidity and basic refusal to admit to any Scriptural errors make it pointless. Like trying to explain color to the blind.
My 2 cents: “how to approach and begin discussions like this? ”
Don’t.
It’s like Mark Twain said about teaching the pig to sing… You waste your time and it annoys the pig.
When I was a hard-core Christian I had conversations with many different people about views opposing my beliefs, from atheists to Muslims. I was so entrenched and sure of myself that nothing that was said perturbed me. Even when a friend told me about Raymond Moody’s book “Life After Life” and was excited about what near-death experiencers said about the afterlife I just pitied him and tried to convert him. Only when I became deeply unhappy (yes, unhappy as a true believer!) and left that branch of Christianity did my mind open. Soon after I left I bought Richard Elliott Friedmann’s book “Who Wrote the Bible?” and saw clearly how the Bible could be viewed as a product of human thinking. This was a turning point for me. Now I don’t even try to get Christians to change their minds, since I know how resistant I was. It will take a personal crisis sometimes for an individual to chart a new course.
What is the goal here? To prove we know more about the world than them or that our beliefs are intellectually superior? I don’t try to convince conservative Christians they are wrong. To what end? People in the world are going to disagree with what I think and I am okay with that. If a Christian has Jesus in their heart and is using their faith to do good works like helping the poor, doctrinal mistakes are unimportant. Starting assumptions are wildly different. We are ships sailing past one another.
“Scientific historians” have not worked out any real consensus about Jesus and they never will. Maybe a few brute facts (Jewish, crucified by Pilate, movement starter, first third of the first century, brother names James, seen as a wonder worker, talked about the kingdom of God). Little beyond that is certain. There is a second tier of things most might agree on (baptism, the twelve, betrayal by a close confidant but these are argued and consensus means little here anyways. History can never reconstruct the real Jesus. The source material is not good enough. What you get is a shell, the historically minimalist Jesus and history doesn’t do miracles.
I think the big thing is not giving weak examples (a reasonably well-read believer probably knows of the most famous discrepancies–e.g., on which day Jesus was crucified or how many women were at the tomb–and has found some solution that he considers adequate) or appealing to scholarly consensus (again, he already knows that most scholars don’t believe in inerrancy and so he will view their opinion with skepticism).
Instead of asking how many women were at the tomb, I ask what did they report to the apostles: Nothing (Mk 16:8), something like “Jesus is risen; we have seen him! He will meet you in Galilee” (Mt 28:7-10), something like “Jesus is risen” (Lk 24:5-9), or “They have taken his body, and I don’t know where they put it” (Jn 20:2).
Instead of saying scholars agree that there was a documentary dependence, I show them the clear editorial fatigue in Mt. 14:1-14 (compare with Mk 6:7-31) Matthew clearly forgets he is in a retrospective, and the resulting narrative sequence simply makes no sense (particularly the transition to the solitary place for the feeding of the 5000). This shows both that Matthew made a mistake and that Matthew was reworking Mark.
I start with my belief that spiritual truths are personal and unique, based one each individual’s experience, learning, psychology, etc. Given that, there is no way I can prove that my spiritual beliefs are more “correct” that the other person’s. So I encourage testimonials to personal spiritual beliefs, without judgment and with, at the most, probing for accounts of how they have come to those views. But, with regard to historical events, there is evidence, or at least objective probabilities. So challenges are possible. But, as much as I value Bart Ehrman’s probabilities, I can claim no personal expertise; I have my “experts”and the other person has his or her “experts,” and I haven’t found it useful to get bogged down in “my expert is better than your expert” arguments. It doesn’t really help us laypersons in these arguments with other laypersons who have also read “experts.” So the best I can do is to suggest that they read an Ehrman book and see for themselves whether or not they find your evidence to be valid and persuasive.
Just yesterday I was in such a conversation with a friend and neighbor raised and schooled in the Catholic Church. The advantage I have with him is that he is very “intelligent” having a high degree of reasoning and logical abilities. I also have a friend whom I have known since young childhood with such abilities, and his father was Dean of the American Baptist Seminary of the West. Point is, you can only have such discussions with people who are “capable” of understanding such, thus greatly limiting the scope of people you can discuss this with. Key for such discussion is that the parties involved in discussion “cannot” base their Christian Faith on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Faith and Logic cannot be argured against, as they are like “vinegar and oil”. They cannot be combined as a single substance but when added jointly greatly enhance the “flavor”.
In my case, I am a believer in divine Christology and my coregency model of the Trinity, but I do not believe in the creedal eternal generation and eternal procession. And for decades, I said that the authors of canonical Gospels (and all the other books of the Christian Bible) did not use modern standards of history while composing the books that eventually became canonized.
And my recent independent studies of the Gospels have helped me to develop my views. And I imagine that I could write a popular book about it if my time and resources permitted, but here I must abide by the 200-word limit 🙂
I recommend mentioning the differences among scholars who researched the historical Jesus and point to some (e.g., Larry Hurtado) who delve into the research and still believe in divine Christology.
In my case, I agree with Hurtado that Jesus never gave himself a title while Jesus referred to himself with the imagery of the Danielic Son of Man, despite the historical controversy.
Other points include appreciating the Greco-Roman literary devices used by the Gospel authors without insisting that they inherently indicate the falsity of the Gospels’ theologies.
I love discussing religion, politics, and sports with people. All the topics we are told never to discuss in polite company.
However, I do not think it is my place to tell anyone their beliefs are wrong unless they have shown an open-mindedness to learn beyond what they grew up learning. For example, I will discuss my views with certain open-minded family and friends who call themselves Christians but who never attend church regularly or have complicated views of God. But, for example, I will not discuss my views with people who are die-hard evangelical. One day, I was joking with my cousin, and I said, “…I cannot believe people still believe this. Yeah, we believed as kids, but common on…”. My cousin replied, “ I still believe it and teach my kids to believe too.” I said, “ oh” and changed the subject.
I have had these conversations a couple of times with believers. I don’t think the discussion made a lick of difference. The believer just isn’t concerned about it.
I may be reading too much into Galatians. But I get a sense of Paul feeling intellectually superior to Jesus’ largely illiterate disciples. He was an educated Jew who got the gospel right while leaders of the Jerusalem church had no real vision of what the gospel could be. What do you think?
That may be part of the issue, but Paul doesn’t say so. His argument instead is the CHrist appeared directly to him and gave him his gospel message, so if anyone disagrees with it they are disagreeing directly with Christ himself.
So, assuming (as most atheists would, I’d think) that Christ didn’t, in fact, appear directly to Paul, Paul is either blatantly lying about Christ appearing (hard to believe given how devoted he seems to be) or he is delusional. Do you have an opinion on that? Did he, perhaps, have a “dream” where Jesus appeared and gave him the gospel? Did he pray himself into an altered state where he communed with god? Or was he just making it all up to fit his own theology?
I don’t think those are teh only two options. People regularly think they see people or things that they are simply mistaken about. There are a large number of possibilities.
“How do you talk about historical and literary problems (contradictions!) of the Gospels to people who are convinced the Bible has no problems at all?”
Simple. Just recommend to them Ehrman’s bestsellers.
I listened to a podcast recently about the denial of global warming/ vaccines that I found potentially relevant to this discussion. The speakers cited the concept of “Identity Protective Cognition” as a reason individuals choose not to listen to mounting evidence that counters their belief/understanding. The individuals choosing to not acknowledge mounting evidence are actively siding with their “group”, not necessarily acting against logic (although I imagine some do). For these individuals, there is much at stake. To deny their current stance is the same as being removed from their group. For them, loosing an argument is more than just changing their mind, its loosing their identity too.
Additionally, by actively defending against the logical argument, believers are “witnessing” to their belief. This (possibly) allows the individual to return to their group with pride telling stories of their active defense.
Assuming this is the reason to reject the logic, I have no desire to peel someone away from their religious belief or identity. I would stick to safe subjects that would not necessarily challenge their identity yet possibly keep them engaged… or just simply listen.
any books on Paul’s life you would recommend?
Maybe E. P. Sanders short book on Paul with Oxford University Press as a start.
sorry, my prior question is off topic. But I don’t try to convince them, unless they show an openess to outside ideas. Most people who claim to be Christian, dont even read the Bible, except during church service. They have no clue what the trinity actually is. They were never convinced by itellectuala rguments, so intellectual arguments wont impact them. The hardcore “inerrant” believers, think being irrationasl is a mark of faith. so it is useless.
Hitchens has more than a few choice arguments in “God is Not Great” which should elicit doubt in the mind of any believer. Who do you think makes the case for reason best? Russell? Dostoevsky? Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
Well, Dostoevsky remained a Christian. But his chapter Rebellion, in the Brothers Karamazov, right before the Grand Inquisitor, has always made it difficult for me to understand how.
I would suggest that a prerequisite be a common understanding about information. Until we agree on acquisition and validation of information, we can’t agree on the authenticity of anything. Nature is reliable, knowledge is coherent, explanations are mechanistic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if one disagrees with that, then what is their epistemology? Integrity requires consistency in assessment of information; the more important the information the more thorough the assessment; thus, what do you mean by the phrase, “the gospels?”
I would probe until I was confident that we agreed on what we were talking about. Whatever their direction, I would explore their claims and associated evidence. I might also use ordinary examples where most anyone would want to validate information, whether about health issues, home maintenance, personal possessions, and anything else that requires our spending time or money to satisfy our needs or desires. Only after we establish some common approaches to allegations would I be willing to discuss specific allegations, such as those contained in “the Gospels.” In essence, I am asking how I might distinguish their claims from something that they simply made up.