Loading...My Newsweek article this week has generated a lot of response. I have no idea what kind of comments they typically get for their stories, but so far, as of now, there have been 559 on mine; and most of them are negative – to no one’s surprise – written by people (conservative evangelicals and fundamenalists for the most part, from what I can tell) who think that the Gospels are perfectly accurate in what they have to say about Jesus – not just at his birth but for his entire life. A lot of these respondents think that anyone who thinks that the New Testament contains discrepancies is too smart for his or her own good and blind at the same time (not sure how it can go both ways, but there it is).
I’ve also been getting a lot of email from incensed readers, including a sixteen-year old girl who tells me that she is a Pentecostal Christian who has read the Bible 160 times and is now starting her 161st; she was very upset with me and is praying for my soul.
I appreciate the animosity that people feel: I would have felt the same way in my late teens and early twenties when I too was a Bible believing, born-again, conservative evangelical who thought that Scripture was the inerrantly inspired Word of God. But education sometimes has its effect, and it certainly did on me.
What I told this earnest 16 year old was that I appreciated her concerns and that I hoped she would continue to seek the truth, and be willing to follow the truth wherever it leads her, even if it leads her away from what she now thinks is true. If truth is from God, then there is nothing to fear from it. And if following the truth means rejecting your former beliefs, that’s the price you have to pay for being true both to the truth and to yourself.
I’ve gotten more feisty emails as well, as you might imagine. Here’s a typical extract:
I have to say, I’ve read and heard a lot of your viewpoints…I find them ridiculous and not well thought out. I feel your “contradictions” and misconceptions are ill informing young people…it’s heart breaking to see a man so utterly bewildered and worse, sharing this “ignorance” with his students.
My response to this person (I think he was a middle-aged believer in the Bible without a lot of knowledge, needless to say, of scholarship) was of a different order, and it is the point that I want to emphasize in this post. Which is this.
I get criticized a lot for my views, but people (not knowing any better?) act as if my views are highly idiosyncratic and weird and unique to my twisted mind. But the truth is, my basic views about the Bible are the views that just about every bona fide scholar of the Bible in the Western hemisphere shares, with the exception of very, very conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, and, I suppose, (extremely conservative) Roman Catholics. But if you were to survey the leading biblical scholars of our time, they would virtually to a person (again, apart from the religious conservatives who have theological reasons for wanting the Bible to be infallible) agree with the basic views I have – for example, that there are discrepancies, that many of these cannot be reconciled, and that it’s difficult, as a result, to know what really happened historically in the life of Jesus.
Just to belabor the point, these views are those of every biblical scholar teaching at every major research university in North America that I’m aware of. Just take your pick. Ivy League schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, etc. Other outstanding private colleges and universities: Mount Holyoke to Stanford to … choose any geographically between these two. And all the major state research universities (at least the ones I know of), whether West Coast – UC Berkeley, University of Washington, University of Oregon; Midwest – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan; East Coast – North Carolina State, Florida State, Florida, Virginia. And on and on and on. I don’t know of a biblical scholar teaching at a major research university in the country that thinks the Gospel narratives – or the infancy narratives, to be more specific – are free of discrepancies and historically accurate.
Of course – let me stress the point –OF COURSE this does not mean that these views are right. But it does mean that if I’m wrong (as the populace at large seems to think 🙂 ), then we’re all wrong. All the major scholars at all the major universities — and virtually all the other non-major colleges and universities as well (apart from Christian evangelical schools) — all of us are wrong. It could be. I suppose stranger things have happened.
In case anyone wonders, I’m not in a particularly defensive mood just now. I’m actually enjoying this kind of exchange. But I do think that it’s important to be clear. Nothing that I’ve said about the infancy narratives either in Newsweek or on this blog would be a revelation or “news” to a single scholar on the planet. It’s all old news – the sort of thing we all know, because all of us have studied the material. The point of the article, and the blog, is to make this scholarly knowledge available to those who have other (arguably much better) things to do with their lives.
I too in my youth had a “Pirates Eye” view regarding Christianity, at least half my reasoning was disabled due to tradition verses scholarship (facts). For years, my understanding was limited to what mainstream teachers taught and I simply accepted their well-articulated arguments without question. One cannot be an objective student of the scriptures and come away with the view that the autographa is inerrant. Where the hand of man moves, the details will always be plagued with inaccuracy. Paul aptly encourage his churches to be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), to study and prove all things taught. Man authored religions seduce the whole man (including Islam) while the truth liberates. Most fundamentalist cannot face the stark reality that they could be subjugated to a false premise, but rather reject the possibilities and quickly cower behind the traditions of church. Never the less, I still find the truths delivered in the Canon of Christian Scripture superior as a guide for life, even though not inerrant grammatically, factually or technically.
“anyone who thinks that the New Testament contains discrepancies is too smart for his or her own good”
I actually DO believe that some people are too smart. In order to create elaborate conditions under which your pet theory is true, the smarter you are, the better. While I feel particularly safe in that regard and believe you to be largely free of taint (you are pretty smart after all!) there are others – *cough*Wright*cough* – whom I suspect fall prey to this affliction.
🙂
Bart, you can see by my screen name that my favorite thing to do in my life is study the Torah/Christian Torah alias OT and NT. I love your books. The first one I read, Misquoting Jesus, backed me into a wall. Okay. How do I get out of here Lord? I had prayed before I read it that it wouldn’t effect my faith in Him and in Yeshua as my saviour. I had to just back off and pray about it for a while. I did like the book. I knew it was the truth, but where did I go from here? I made up my mind, and in my heart I knew, that I truly believe that Yeshua IS the Son of God, at the same time He IS God, and I truly believe that he came to earth as a little baby, grew up, had a ministry of reconciliation, died on the cross, and rose again, the second Adam victorious. I knew in my heart and mind I truly and certainly do believe. So then what do I, a SS teacher for 29 years, a Hebrew language teacher, a Hebrew roots studier, some consider a scholar, do with your books? When I calmed down in my spirit and prayed (a lot), I knew everything you wrote was true. I had to balance that with what I believe. I have been at major peace with it all since then and have read many more of your books. At this point, I’m glad I have read them and know the truth. It’s not something I share with anyone except my husband. Many people aren’t mature enough in their faith to be able to handle this truth. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for them losing their faith. I just got Forgery and Counterforgery, and my first thought was, “How in the world could anyone write a book like this with maybe size 8 font in a lifetime! It’s huge!” Then I decided if you could write it, I could read it, so I decided systematically to read one chapter a day. I love it already. You write just like you’re sitting down in person and talking to us. That’s how people say I write. Mazel tov on this production. I appreciate so much your scholarship and ability to write books like these and to teach. I wish I had been able to go to university, but, alas, at 70 years of age it’s a little late, so I’ll be content with books. Thanks again.
Thanks! It was a hard book to write! I hope you keep enjoying it.
Thanks for sharing this, Bart!
I think it is hysterical—and in many ways quite sad—to see how defensive and insulting lay people become when faced with bona fide, critical scholarship of the NT. Apparently, all you need is a self-proclaimed “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” and then you can rest smugly in the *assurance* that the Paraclete is guiding you into “all truth.”
Silly superstitions and myths aside, I seem to encounter the the blankest of stares and a total loss of words when I try to remind these masses of true believers that scholars like you, as well as the rest of the majority of other NT scholars, have spent your *entire* professional lives in this field. You do this day-in and day-out—for a living! And it ain’t like it’s easy!
“Think about what you do for a living,” I’ll say. “Even in an non-academic pursuit, you are probably on the inside track with respect to the knowledge, issues, and opinions contained therein. How presumptuous would it be if someone who was not a professional in your field came to you and told you that they knew your subject better—more certainly— than you?”
And this rhetorical strategy leaves aside the fact that, in the case of NT scholarship, we are dealing with *highly-trained*, *interconnected*, *internally-critiqued* scholars who lay their theses out for ALL scholars to test. It is clear here that one would be wise to heed the professional opinions of the matter, if not accept the worldviews held by these scholars. After all, even a well-respected, conservative scholar like Luke Timothy Johnson (Emory University) concedes to these points regarding the gospel discrepancies.
Keep on fighting the good fight, Bart … to employ a deutero-Pauline quip in an ironic way! For all of the true searchers, their quest for truth will ultimately let the chips fall where they may. As for those smug detractors: ‘Illegitimi non carborundum’ … nothing speaks louder than arrogance, nor more certainly than ignorance.
Bart, I for one find your views soundly based. Way before I was turned on to your books, I too felt there wasn’t something, pardon the phrase, kosher, not only with the stories of the New Testament. but the Bible as a whole, and I suspect if I took the time to read the Quran, I would feel the same way about that too! Your book, “Misquoting Jesus”, which I highly recommend to anyone who wants a honest and well researched history into who the wrote the Bible and why, only confirmed the suspicions I had had for at least 20 years, and you confirmed them. For that I am eternally grateful. And I believe your findings could translate to other ancient religions as well, thus proving them not as perfect as their believers would like to believe. Keep up the good work!!
“Of course – let me stress the point – OF COURSE this does not mean that these views are right. But it does mean that if I’m wrong (as the populace at large seems to think 🙂 ), then we’re all wrong. All the major scholars at all the major universities — and virtually all the other non-major colleges and universities as well (apart from Christian evangelical schools) — all of us are wrong. It could be. I suppose stranger things have happened.”
This is the agnostic’s conundrum. Somewhere on this blog, a reader postulated that there is no difference between the agnostic and the atheist; that the agnostic is for all intents and purposes an atheist.
But this is where I see the difference: Agnostics are humble enough to admit that they don’t have all the answers.
Coming from a genuine born-again background, I asked myself, “which is the greater sin – to lie about the facts and continue to blindly believe, or to tell the truth – which the Bible commands us to do?” Which is the “higher calling” and what do we owe to God (if he actually exists)? Would God expect us to believe the unbelievable or lie about it, as a test of our worthiness for salvation?
Fantacizing, I can see myself on the last day: “But Lord, I never denied You! I just called the evolved story into question, but not You personally!”
The thing is, I desparately wanted to believe. I wanted to be the best Christian there ever was…but when I did that, I came to this conundrum. I didn’t believe something that my intellect (that You gave me) and my experiences (that You allowed) told me could not be so.
But don’t think I didn’t think pretty hard on the subject before coming to that conclusion! Don’t think I didn’t search for You with all my heart, all my mind, and all my soul. And being God, You should already know that!
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for making your work public. I’m encouraged to see the directions scholarship has taken in the gospel accounts. I grew up in a fundamentalist church and I agree your well formed arguments are unfortunately fuel for the masses of hyper-conservative types who have little else better to do than attack solid scholarship in a forum like Newsweek. However, there are many recovering fundamentalists like myself who agree with and appreciate the grayness of Scriptural accounts. We value your voice in the public forum which presents a more balanced view of Scripture. Keep up the good work.
You patience with those who treat you badly or say bad or untrue things about you is commendable! Too many mean-spirited people. It’s probably your born-again background that allows you to be able to be patient. As you said many times before, you encourage people to think critically for themselves and work to pass on scholarship to the general public. You don’t hate Christians…
Yeah, the responses seem pretty embarassing. At least it’s not the 16th century, when folks like that would have burnt everybody who doubted the gospel birth accounts’ historicity at the stake.
When I read comments like that, I like to imagine an alternate universe, where The Life Of Apollonius Of Tyana is more popular than the gospels, and people rant about how swans dancing around Apollonius’ virgin mother is “the best attested event in human history” and that they hope Zeus has mercy on our immortal souls for doubting it.
I see it as a very positive development that you’re able to get this information into mainstream media. It’s important that people are exposed to it, even if many of them react strongly to it.
“be willing to follow the truth wherever it leads her, even if it leads her away from what she now thinks is true. If truth is from God, then there is nothing to fear from it. And if following the truth means rejecting your former beliefs, that’s the price you have to pay for being true both to the truth and to yourself.”
Have to say that I love this passage. Very well said.
You should have said the following in that article: “But if you were to survey the leading biblical scholars of our time, they would virtually to a person (again, apart from the religious conservatives who have theological reasons for wanting the Bible to be infallible) agree with the basic views I have – for example, that there are discrepancies, that many of these cannot be reconciled, and that it’s difficult, as a result, to know what really happened historically in the life of Jesus.
Just to belabor the point, these views are those of every biblical scholar teaching at every major research university in North America that I’m aware of. Just take your pick. Ivy League schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, etc. Other outstanding private colleges and universities: Mount Holyoke to Stanford to … choose any geographically between these two. And all the major state research universities (at least the ones I know of), whether West Coast – UC Berkeley, University of Washington, University of Oregon; Midwest – Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan; East Coast – North Carolina State, Florida State, Florida, Virginia. And on and on and on. I don’t know of a biblical scholar teaching at a major research university in the country that thinks the Gospel narratives – or the infancy narratives, to be more specific – are free of discrepancies and historically accurate.”
It might have headed off some of the BS blow back you are getting now.
MY FEEDBACK ON THE ARTICLE, THIS BLOG, ALL THE BOOKS, PROGRAMS, DEBATES, and COURSES —
THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART FOR THE HONESTY, SHARING THE KNIOWLEGE FROM YOUR PAINSTAKING EFFORTS AND LIFELONG EFFORT TO REALLY STUDY THE BIBLE. YOU ARE A BRAVE MAN, DR. EHRMAN.
Doctor Ehrman
Even though I agree with every single letter you wrote,
I strongly believe that you need to look through a different angle.
Although the scholarly concensus is on your side, how many of those scholars mention those facts?
How many of those who do mention it have the ‘Ehrman charisma’?
Dr Ehrman you have English language at your fingertips which combined with personal communication gifts, make you extremely convincing, I would take whatever you say as THE truth.
Perhaps because you’re genuine, so the arguments come as genuine too.
Your books are hoovering centuries of dust that made people’s logical analytical faculties immune to reason.
I know for certain that the reflex of reading an ‘idea’ that you put makes me all the more certain,and content, but that also makes ‘them’ more wobbly, furious and ultimately more defensive!
In short, if removing a slightly decayed tooth is extremely painful, then removing a fully corrupted belief is unbearable.
I may well be accused of exaggerating but it’s my honest opinion.
Regards,
Walid
Fascinating to note that even Al Mohler’s response never addressed the issues and contradictions you pointed out in the texts, but sort of went round in circles repeating the necessity of believing the gospels are historical fact in order for ‘Christianity not to fall apart’. It’s disturbing how skilled evangelicals seems to be when it comes to red herrings. Another great article, thanks again for your work – here’s at least one non-incensed reply (:
You wrote a good article which will fall on many deaf hostile ears I fear. I left church work many years ago for that very reason. Last year I thought it might be interesting to attend church again and picked what I thought was a nice “progressive, social action” Methodist Church….wrong. The first statement from the new young minister at the opening night of the first Bible study was, “There are absolutely no contradictions or controversies anywhere in the entire Bible.” When I chose to object with some samples, a “church lady” interrupted saying, “You don’t understand the truth of the Holy Bible because I have not yet received the Holy Spirit.” So much for my attempt to revive church-going !!!
I for one would like to thank you for your work and scholarship. Your work and debates were instrumental in helping break my fear of questioning “inerrant scripture”.
thank you,
Brian
I just read the comments on your Newsweek story. Observation: if getting into Heaven is based on “correct knowledge,” no one will be admitted !!!
More seriously, what I read in the comments was primarily about 1) correct theology and 2) going to Heaven or Hell.
What was missing? All of the teaching of Jesus regarding “love your neighbor.” That is… All of the social ethics. I am still convinced that the great majority of professing Christian are primarily concerned about the rewards and not the works of faith.
In future, why not include footnotes citing other scholarly books and articles (especially from clergy-scholars) that also share the points you are making? This would go a small way towards dispelling the myth you are expressing idiosyncratic views?
I’ve thought about it. But footnotes are generally for scholars. My book Jesus Interrupted made the point that virtually everything I said was what is taught in every quality biblical studies program at every college and university and top-level seminary in the country.
It is difficult for people currently outside academia, or in academia but outside theology/religious studies/biblical departments to check for themselves what is taught. Either your readers have to take your word that this is universally taught in major centres of learning, or reject your word in the same way they reject everything else you say. By citing a litany of books and authors – outsiders can easily check on Wikipedia or department websites for their credentials – your readers check up the references themselves if they are really keen on pursuing the facts, or they have to accept they are putting themselves in opposition to the scholarly community.
From Newsweek article: “These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts.”
Do you mean the gospels are not meant by the authors to be about historical facts? Sure the authors intended them to be such, as Luke 1 and concluding paragraph of John make clear, and the narrative style of all the gospels give the impression of presenting history in the form of ancient storytelling. For centuries until the Enlightenment, aside from the strand of allegorical interpretations, the Church have always read the gospels as straightforward history. Authorial intention is of course altogether different from whether the narratives are in fact historicaly accurate.
I don’t think before the Enlightenment people differentiated between historical truth and theological truth; the very distinction, which we make today, would not have made sense to ancient people. But we make it, and if we do, we have to ask what kind of books ancient books are. They are NOT books that try to be historical in our modern sense, since they didn’t have our post-Enlightenment sense of what history is or how it should be done.
I have to confess I have come across this position in various quarters (that pre-Enlightenment thinkers did not distinguish theology and history), but I haven’t read an an adequate justification. Surely even ancient people understood logical reasoning (certainly the Greek philosophers did). Either Jesus was born in Bethlehem or he wasn’t (applying Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction). If he wasn’t, then the claim that he was is historically false (i.e. it didn’t happen) – irrespective of whether one recognises a distinction between history and theology. Such a claim in the context of a rich inspiring story – the nativities stories are clearly such – can still have theological value. Conservative Christians today reject suggestions that the gospels have historical inaccuracies because in their worldview, historical inaccuracies undermine theological truth. One can debate whether this is in fact so. In pre-Enlightenment era, Christian thinkers did not address this debate because there was no compelling reason to suspect there were historical inaccuracies.
Ancient histories or biographies were not written in the style and purpose of modern histories. But even ancient people understood the distinction between saying something happened, and saying it didn’t happen. Surely ancient readers understood the distinction between a parable and a historical narrative – when they read Luke narrating Jesus being born in Bethlehem during reign of Emperor Augustus, they would have understood it as expressing something that happened in a real town to a real person under reign of a real emperor. When they read Luke narrating a prodigal son, they switch to a different mode trying to match what each figure in the story represented and were not concerned with whether the prodigal son did exist, from which town he was from, under which emperor the family lived. Today the word “parable” denotes a story that is intentionally fictional (or at least, the historicity of the story is of no relevance to the purpose of the story). From what we can tell, how did ancient people understand the word?
The situation as I understand it, is that the Church before the Enlightenment – in fact sections of the church through the Enlightenment up till present day – did not see distinction between history and theology, because they assumed things happened as they were described (leaving aside the allegorical interpretation). Hence historical truth cohered with theological truth.
Even during the patristic period, certain discrepancies in the gospels were already spotted (e.g. when Jesus caused a commotion in the Temple), and attempts were made to harmonise them. If ancient people were not concerned about historical accuracy, they would not have seen the need to harmonise discrepancies.
Numerically, are biblical scholars from conservative seminaries of comparable size to those in mainline seminaries plus research universities?
Do biblical scholars from conservative seminaries generally do not publish in scholarly biblical journals and academic presses, hence they do not engage with critical scholarship in these publications – that is, they live in a parallel universe in term of publications? If they do publish and engage with critical scholarship, I wonder how can they honestly churn out ordinands and pastors who are either ignorant or hostile towards findings of critical scholarship. These pastors in turn do a real disservice to their congregation by keeping them in the dark.
I don’t know what the comparative numbers are. There are a lot of evangelical and fundamentalist seminaries and colleges out there! Some important evangelical scholars do indeed publish in critical journals, but they either deal with non-threatening aspects of the discipline or come to “acceptable” (to their constituencies) conclusions.
I believe it is very difficult for people to change gears once they have traveled so far in one direction with a focus on the end point(slavation).
Even when faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to their belief, they still stay the course based upon what is comfortable in their life.
It kind of parellels the movie the Matrix……. do you take the blue pill and go back to dreamland or do you take the red pill and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes?
I grew up as a Christian in my early youth and then went the way of non-belief in the Biblical account of God after college and led this life of…… lets just say alternate belief in creation and now I have come back to belief in God as the one and true creator of mankind.
I converted to Islam(can’t wait to hear the reaction) because it made so much sense for me personally.
Not much has changed about me other than the content of my heart. I did not change my name or grow a beard or change the way I talk……. it was just what came from within that resonates outward now.
I know there is a God, but I do know that it is not the God of the NT.
Problem with Christianity( and Islam as well), so many profess to follow their faith, but I see so many Christians or Muslims in title, but not in their hearts.
I wish I had your patience with people, I really do!
I don’t think that giving a list of universities where the truth can be found is the best solution for under educated evangelicals. It’s been my experience that analogy is the best weapon for these kinds of people, otherwise you start sounding elitist with them and they completely shut down on you.
I notice you include NC State, my alma mater, in your list of schools. Maybe the classes are new (post 1991), but I don’t recall any theological courses from my time there.
Yes, NC State has a very good department of Religious Studies, and has had for a long time. But it’s small, and since NCS is not a liberal arts college, it does not have a huge profile there. But the faculty are top-rate.
“The point of the article, and the blog, is to make this scholarly knowledge available to those who have other (arguably much better) things to do with their lives.”
… and would really like to thank you for that! Your commitment is a source of inspiration for me.
When have discrepancies been acknowledged in print for the first time? Is it possible that nobody noticed before? For example, in support of the forgery of some letters of Paul, you mention that the Greek style and vocabulary are sometimes extremely different. You also write that the wide majority of the population of the Roman empire was illiterate, but surely some educated readers of the New Testament in antiquity must have noticed something odd at times, no?
Yes, there were scholars in the ancient church who recognized such things. One of the most fascinating was Origen (third century) who maintained that the discrepancies of Scripture (which he assiduously uncovered) indicated places that the Holy Spirit meant to be interpreted in a figurative sense, since the literal sense did not work.
“But if you were to survey the leading biblical scholars of our time, they would virtually to a person (again, apart from the religious conservatives who have theological reasons for wanting the Bible to be infallible) agree with the basic views I have – for example, that there are discrepancies, that many of these cannot be reconciled, and that it’s difficult, as a result, to know what really happened historically in the life of Jesus.”
Thanks Bart, interesting as ever and I have a question.
I speak to a number of Christians on the internet who maintain that ALL/MOST Biblical scholars accept the ‘facts’ of the Bible especially the resurrection. Although you mention this in the context of discrepancies here, what are the views generally with regard to for example, the empty tomb, the ascension and other miracles?
I guess that the views of Christian biblical scholars and historians are easily deduced but what proportion of the people studying these things seriously, do they account for. I suppose that if the majority of scholars in this field are Christians, then my debating colleagues are correct.
Are there any sites/links you know that address this question with a few of the number involved?
Yes the majority of NT scholars are Christians, so the majority does believe in the resurrection — in some sense. Many of the more critical scholars do not press hard on the quesiton of whether it was an actual resuscitation of the body….
Dr. Ehrman,
Have you read “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by Tom Wright? I would be interested in your response to it or pointing me toward any good critical analysis you know of toward this work.
Yes, I have. I think it is way too apologetic in its intentions and conclusions. To balance it a bit, you might consider the essays in Gavin D’Costa Resurrection Reconsidered and/or in Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment .
Dr. Ehrman,
Assuming your comment above indicates you do not believe that Jesus rose from death I am curious if this is a reason based on your understanding of the textual tradition and some major variants around the resurrection narratives and the other references to it in the NT or if it is based on some reasoning not found in your field of expertise. Thanks.
That’s a very interesting way to put the question. Are you suggesting that I have just one area of expertise and that it is the variants in the textual tradition of the NT? Why would you think that this in particular is my one area of expertise? (I know that evangelical critics of mine — and atheist critics of mine — sometimes say this, but I’ve never understood why. My PhD training and most of my publications are in fact in different areas than that)
But to answer your question, one main reason I don’t think Jesus was raised from the dead is that I believe there is no life after death of any kind for anyone, including Jesus. Once you’re dead, that’s the end of the story. This belief is not based on any of my various areas of expertise. But even before I came to this belief I had come to think Jesus was not raised from the dead. Although I certainly think that some of his followers were convinced he had!
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for taking time to respond to me. I was not trying to assert that you only have 1 area of expertise (textual criticism). However, I was curious if you came to doubt the resurrection based on that field of study or for another reason- apologies for my poor wording. You did answer my question however in your comments when you stated your belief about dead people not being able to rise from death. I too have noticed that dead people tend to stay dead and there is nothing that I have ever personally observed that would lead me to conclude the opposite.
However, this common argument based on observation might run into a problem if we were confronted with evidence (in the form of testimony and circumstances) that in fact someone had been raised from the dead. If this were the case the appeal to “dead people don’t rise” would beg the question. Assuming you believe that Peter, John and some of the other disciples really did exist and really did believe that Jesus rose from the dead what would you have expected them to have said when they met first century skeptics who like us know that it is not natural for dead people to rise. If they got into a debate and the skeptic said, “come on now we all just know dead people don’t rise” would that be a good argument? I suppose we could say that the claim is so against everything we know that no amount of evidence could compel us to believe but at this point we would really just be asserting our bias and not actually forming a rational argument against resurrection.
To boil it all down I guess my question for you is how good of an argument is the “dead people don’t rise because no one ever has” when dealing with an actual claim that indeed someone has risen from death. How does one avoid begging the question in this case? Does it come down to the quality of the evidence or should one who advocates that view be content to beg the question?
Just to lay my cards out there (if it is not obvious already) I am a Christian and I do believe Jesus rose from death but I understand the difficulty in advocating this position particularly in a scholarly setting.
Yes, I could tell you were a Christian who believed in the resurrection by the way you asked your question.
I may devote some posts to this, as it’s obviously a major issue. I’ll be dealing with it more in my next book on How Jesus Became God. For now let me just answer your question directly. Most of my graduate training at both the Masters and the PhD level was in exegesis. My secondary field was history of the early Christian tradition. Almost all of my research and teaching (both undergraduates and graduates) over hte past 20 years has been historical. So exegesis and early Christian history are my two main areas of expertise. And based on both fields, my view is that there is not good evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.
I might add, that if you’re seriously interested in evidence, then I wonder what you make of the even greater testimony to the appearances of the Virgin Mary in the modern age. Or, for example, of the evidence that other figures such as Romulus and Apollonius were taken into heaven. Does evidence really matter? It’s a genuine question! My experience is that most people who are convinced that there is *evidence* that Jesus was raised are not interested in looking at evidence for miracles connected with people they do *not* already believe in.
There is a very strident, conservative evangelical woman who does a religious themed radio show named Janet Mefferd. She has often had as a guest on her show a man (James White, a hard core conservative Calvinist) with a ‘doctorate’ from an unaccredited institution for the sole purpose of claiming Ehrman is all wet. She had him on just lastweek to denounce his Newsweek article.
She tells the listener that “James White had denated Bart Ehrman” in a context which suggests White mopped the floor with him. Well, anyone who has seen or heard their debate can attest to the fact that Ehrman exposed White as an inept ‘scholar’. But it’s instructive for the following reason: it lends credence to the admonition of people like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephan Jay Gould that respectible scholars such as Ehrman perhaps ought not debate people with dubious academic credentials (such as ‘Dr.’ James White), creationists (which White happens to be as well, though this was not the subject of his debate with Ehrman), or people making unsound arguments in general because – as Dawkins puts it – it does wonders for the resume of the crank but nothing for the resume of the legitimate scholar.
James White mentions his having debated Ehrman regularly and despite his expressed contempt for Ehrman’s views, clearly takes great pride in the fact that Ehrman considered him legitimate emough to debate. Moreover, people like the aforementioned Mefferd cite the fact that Ehrman debated White to lend credibility to White (despite the fact that White’s debate with Ehrman went disastrously bad for White – a view reluctantly conceded even by many of White’s online fanboys). Ehrman on the other hand is not in the habit of name dropping James White.
The cognitive dissonance here is striking: Accoridng to White, Ehrman doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to the Bible, yet he regularly cites his having debated Bart Ehrman as his calling card to establish his alleged scholarly bonafides.
So, yeah, maybe Dawkins has a point after all…
Yeah, I constantly wonder about this. In my self defense, I had never *heard* of James White before I agreed to debate him. He’s a big person in his own small little world, but unknown among scholars of the Bible, which is the world of people I live with….
nice to see so many comments on the issue in this blog. So many of us with so many of the same stories, yet what amazes me is how many are different to each other in some ways. To me the Bible not being perfect word of God is it…. Everything else is in vain after that, pure and simple. I suffered greatly as a Christian, and wouldn’t want that horror on anyone, so I am appreciative for all the books you write and anything else I can gleam from the internet, debates Etc. This information is very important, and I have shared it with those around me, with generally acceptance, and an improvement of their lives as well as mine, which i am grateful. Can’t wait for the next book, a topic i’m most interested in. Though raising three kids now, as an agnostic is an interesting adventure. Just earlier today my 6 year old asked me who the first person was, by the time I tried to explain dna, coming out of Africa, we don’t really know,( he seeemed to lose interest after that) I envy my christian friends, Ohhh that’s easy Adam and Eve. but that’s another topic….
Dr. Ehrman,
I am a 34 year old Christian who received a BA in Religion from a small Christian College near Seattle. I listened to your debate with Dan Wallace and I am familiar with your interactions with James White. I am well aware that there is a long list of variances in the textual tradition of the Bible. I think you have rightly highlighted many instances of these and some of the implications. However, I think that as has been pointed out many times it is important to keep in mind that what many more “conservative” scholars, apologists and average Joes like me disagree with are the interpretations you give to those facts. All sides who have read about textual criticism know that variances exist- no one who has ever read Metzger or FF Bruce would question this. What we do question is what you do with those facts. As Dr. Cornelius Van Til rightly pointed out no facts are brute facts all are interpreted.
I completely agree!
Dr. Ehrman,
Having read most of your books and some of your courses on video, I find your journeys through faith and knowledge to be quite interesting. One can see that the concepts of our faith at times tears at the core of our inner being, and rightly so. Any thinking, sentient person with a Judeo-Christian background must at times questions and re-evaluate that faith as they learn new things and explore concepts.
I am somewhat saddened by those who take all that is written in the Bible (or any religious document) as history. History is basically the study or determination of what really (or most likely) happened. While any study by man is in and of it self imprecise, the fact remains that religious documents are just that- religious, not historical. Whomever wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not writing history. Paul to a greater degree may have (at least the letters he himself wrote), but, like the Gospel writers, it was Paul’s main intent to convince people about Jesus, not to document history.
I know you have struggled with God allowing evil to exist , and that idea has also brought me to the brink on occasion; what brings me back is a blend of science and spirituality. As we explore an ever-expanding universe I marvel at that concept that we are hurtling faster and faster into nothingness. As we evolve as humans and other forms of life I marvel that a God has created such a process and am glad it was not started via some “magic tricks” done as the Bible claims out of a somewhat bored God’s existence.
I grew up Roman Catholic, sampled most of the traditional Protestant denominations in my college and early post-college days and settled on the Lutheran Church over 30 years ago. I find the concepts of Martin Luther (well, maybe not some of his later ones…) and the simplification of the orthodox catholic concepts to be the least limiting to my psyche. That is not to say they are anywhere near perfect; organized religion is a human concept of which God played little to no part in directly instituting. But it gives us a basis of beliefs, a community to be part of and a means to love and help others as Christ commanded. If every religion and denomination acted that way, the world would be better off.
Bart D. Ehrman,
I read this article and it seems that the whole construction was very crafty. You led people to inquire that you believe in God and the Son of God. When, I’ve come to discover, you do not. I just have one question for you that I would ask myself if I was in your situation and it is this: If you do not believe in God or Jesus Christ, then why do you pour your life out trying to disprove Him? I do not believe in the Easter Bunny so I have simply moved on with my life. The facts are obvious so there is no point dwelling in something that I know is not true. If you honestly believed that there is no God and there is no Jesus and the NT is mostly fabricated then you would just accept it and move on to something worth devoting your life to. But you haven’t found that something so you keep trying to disprove God. I hope that you consider what I have said and do not simply dismiss me because you are a “scholar” and “know more than me” and are older. I only hope that you try to read this unbiased and earnestly.
Jared Scharber
16 year old junior in High School
Jared,
Thanks for your question. I agree — it would be very strange to try to spend one’s life “disproving God.” But that’s not what I try to do in any of my writings. When you have some free time from your own school work, you may want to try reading one of my books. Misquoting Jesus would be a good one to start with. All best,
I was stunned by this 16 years old remark. Jared is right. Why you spend all your life trying to ruin people’s faith with your ‘scholarly’ attack? I know in today’s atmospher, debunking christianity is a money generating tactic like the Militant Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Dawknis did. If you are truthful and why don’t you also direct your readers to consider other New Testamant Scholars like John Warwick Montgoomey and who trashed your argument like philospher William Lane Craig and James White. Don’t just cling on the mountain of scholoarship just by youself. God will judge you in his own time! Hitchens didnt save his soul!
in his grip
Mat
You don’t seem to be a 16 year old, so unlike my answer to him, I can be more direct with you. If you think that this is my agenda, you clearly haven’t read my books, and maybe you should! It really is not right to attack people without knowing what they actually say. (and John Warwick Montgomery is NOT a New Testament scholar)