Loading...
This now is the next post by Kurt Jaros, who himself is a Christian theologian and apologist but who explains how other conservative apologists have misrepresented me. For the record, I swear, I ain’t payin’ him to say this!
Kurt will be happy to respond to your comments or questions. Enjoy!
Misquoting Ehrman – Part Two: Strawmanning Ehrman
“In this video, I begin exploring how it is that some Christian scholars and apologists have misconstrued Bart Ehrman’s views in Misquoting Jesus. This isn’t to say these particular Christians intentionally misconstrued his position, but perhaps were hasty in their analyses. Christians have a moral duty to fairly and accurately convey their opponents’ claims (1 Peter 3:16), so it’s time to steelman Ehrman, not strawman him.”
”For the record, I swear, I ain’t payin’ him to say this!” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I mean … my donation gateway is open: VeracityHill.com/donate
hahaha!
I think it bugs people to read uncomfortable truths – it’s as simple as that.
Agreed; on all sides.
Hi Kurt, as I’m sure you’re aware, there is a strong scholarly consensus that Jesus can be best viewed as an apocalyptic prophet. That the historical Jesus was thoroughly Jewish who didn’t intend to found a new religion or claim to be divine. Is there a book you would recommend that makes a convincing argument against this idea? Thanks.
Hi RAhmed,
I suggest Craig Keener’s “The Historical Jesus of the Gospels” or N. T. Wright’s “Jesus and the Victory of God” (his second volume in the 3-vol set).
I don’t think you’d get pushback from evangelical NT scholars on the position that Jesus did not intend to found a new religion (Matthew 5:17-20). Such scholars (and myself) would agree with you that Jesus did not, nor intended to, create a new religion. Claims on divinity, on the other hand, we would disagree.
This is awesome, Kurt, and very well presented. In textual criticism the data is the data. Some text critics are glass-half-full people, where Ehrman is glass-half-empty.
Thanks for your clarity. Keep it up. New Testament studies needs better communication and less polarization.
Thanks, Richard!
I’m not certain that Ehrman would view himself as glass-half-empty. Ultimately, he does believe we can have knowledge of the earliest available form of the text (a technicality that I believe (though he might object) constitutes as the pursuit of the *original* document). Stay tuned for future videos at this site! Cheers.
Kurt, you state in your video, “If these scribes were intent to conserve and preserve, then we should have reasonable belief that the New Testament does accurately describe something Jesus said or did. Or if you wanted a stellar quotation from Ehrman on this in his textbook introduction on the new testament he wrote, ‘In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable… accuracy.'”
Ehrman’s quote doesn’t support your point. A faithful reconstruction of the New Testament manuscripts only tells us what the authors claimed Jesus said and did, and nothing at all about whether Jesus actually said and did those things. To believe the latter indicates a step beyond “reasonable belief” into motivated reasoning.
Thanks for catching that. I should have said, “…we should have reasonable belief that the New Testament does accurately communicate what the authors believed Jesus said or did.”
Consider the slip my own bias entering in! 😉
It’s funny, realizing that conservative scholars and apologists were constantly misunderstanding or mischaracterizing things Dr. Ehrman said (in this book especially) was one of the biggest cracks in my former evangelical faith. A couple things stand out for me:
1) the claim that Ehrman is somehow treating the Bible differently (especially with some kind of malicious, radical skepticism) than other books/authors. As someone who has studied the Homeric question and to lesser degrees other ancient sources like Diogenes, I’m always floored when people like Dan Wallace imply that Bart’s ‘(radical!) perspective’ is somehow not how other fields treat these works—when those fields prominently feature exactly that kind of scholarship & ‘pessimism’ about reconstructing an *original* or having certainty about earlier/original readings. Like, have they ever read an introduction or commentary on these topics??
2) Both Christians and atheists say this: that Ehrman saying ‘we don’t know what the NT originally said’ (whatever original means) means we have *no clue* about any of it, like literally every word could be different, unknowable, or unretrievable. I understand why both groups may want to interpret Bart in this ridiculous way, but it never ceases to annoy me when I see it lol
Hi Mae,
1) Well, scholars do have debates as to whether even they should approach an historical text with suspicion, neutrality, or reliable. See the conference panel I held with Bart and 3 evangelical scholars to see how they answers that question.
2) That is a way that Christians interpret him, because “know” is unqualified. Bart, in those cases, means know-with-100%-certainty (or maybe an extremely high degree of certainty). But, in other cases, Bart does believe we can know what the NT originally said. So it’s just a matter of parsing out which type of knowledge he has in mind when he uses the term.
Hey Kurt!
I’ve actually seen this panel! Let me just say ‘suspicion/neutrality/reliability’ is not a good framing of scholarship—I haven’t read historians who don’t interrogate their sources.
Let’s consider the textual criticism of Homer, since that’s often invoked to show the NT is treated unfairly: in fact, Homer is probably treated *more* harshly. This is because the manuscript tradition of, say, the Iliad is less attested—there are places where *any* witness to the ‘original’ text is simply lost. Furthermore, it’s problematic to even define what *original* means. Was it an oral performance by Homer? Was it someone’s oral performance that Homer recorded? Was there an oral poet named Homer who was literate & wrote his poem down? He would’ve performed this poem many times—each time would’ve been different, so there’s no one original in any of these scenarios. There’re scholars who think there are two different *originals* that our extant manuscripts derive from. That doesn’t even consider versions Homer would have heard other poets perform before or during his compositional period. While NT textual criticism *does* have some of these problems (Bart alludes to this concerning the Pauline corpus in a Wallace debate), the NT simply isn’t treated with *more* skepticism.
I think what Christian apologists mean when/if they claim the NT is treated more harshly is when all of the evidence is considered. Homer gets rough treatment because the evidence is so scant. When the ginormous heap of evidence for NT transmission, including tangential evidence (say, for examples, comments from church leaders), is considered, drawing the same conclusions for the NT as for Homer seems (through good reason) unwarranted.
Hi Dr Jaros. Thanks for addressing this. It has long riled me. As politely as possible (and I don’t think one should be polite, actually – I think we should simply be honest) Peter J Williams, Timothy Jones, Nick Perrin, Koukl and many others are . . . not being honest. They are (much too politely put) “Not Being Honest – for Jesus.” If there was a Jesus HE would not have liked their approach. At all. They should blush.
Charity should be the first approach in scholarship, especially when we think people have made some (big) mistake. My first wager is that some of these scholars found passages which, taken out of context, make it seem like Ehrman affirms one position when really he does not.
Bart’s scholarship and position is pretty clear throughout his books and blog: we don’t have ‘original’ anything. We have copies of copies of copies of copies…no more no less. Some of ‘the bible’ we have today likely reflects what was in the originals, but we can never *know* that.
The issue, the conflict, is that most/all evangelicals believe every word of the bible is god-breathed, from Genesis to Maps. If so, then this same god did a terrible job of preservation of his word. I was formerly one of those evangelicals, yes, an ordained baptist minister, and once I took a tiny step back and exposed all I ‘knew’ to the light of non-evangelical scholarship, well, the entire edifice of new testament christianity collapsed. Oh, to be sure, it is great period literature, and chock full of wonderful life lessons, but it ain’t the infallible, error-free ‘word of god,’ not by a long shot.
Hi Dave, you’d have to define the word “know.” There is a spectrum of certainty, so some (I would argue for most) things we can know with reliable certainty, as you say in other words; “Some of ‘the Bible’ we have today likely reflects what was in the originals.” Of course, it does not means what what text says is true, but at least we can have reliable certainty about the claims being made
Great video. It’s nice to see a believing Christian view his work honestly.
What I like about Dr. Ehrman when he’s interacting with a critic, a dissenter or a detractor is that he typically says something like… “fine. If your view is correct, provide a valid methodology and some evidence to support it.” This is a great response and it usually ends the discussion of that particular topic. I find that where evidence is thin on the ground he recognizes that, but where there is no evidence for an assertion, he makes it known as well as that he would be open to such evidence if presented. This is the distinction between a scholar and someone with an agenda. A position I myself work hard at holding on to.
Thanks for your comment. I’m quite open to the type of conversation you’re imagining, here. With scholars, you would get a proposed methodology with support of evidence (Wallace, Evans, Licona, etc.). Those conversations are out there, but harder to come across.
Hello Kurt, and thanks for doing this!
You described in one of your videos how “Biblical inspiration” is not the same as “Biblical inerrancy”. You’re very right: it’s certainly possible to believe that the Bible is inspired and infallible in all it teaches that is necessary for salvation, without believing that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that Abiathar was the high priest in David’s time, that the “whole city” surrounded Simon’s mother-in-law’s house, etc. (You demurred about your own beliefs on this.)
Why do you think so many evangelicals are insistent on Biblical inerrancy? After all, the Bible doesn’t actually claim to be inerrant in every trivial detail. And “Biblical inspiration” is a matter of faith, not really subject to disproof… but Biblical inerrancy is (as I’m sure you’re very aware) a huge challenge to convince a neutral third-party of, given the many minor apparent contradictions and mistakes. Wouldn’t it be more productive to claim that the Bible is perfectly inspired and a completely reliable guide to salvation, but not immune to unimportant, trivial “gotcha” mistakes? Wouldn’t that position be more convincing, and thus more evangelically effective? Why do so many evangelicals reject that position as anathema?
You’re skipping ahead! 😀
I think the model you’re suggesting should be preferred by evangelicals, for logical rationale: If some parts of the Bible were trivially false it does not mean most parts of the Bible are trivially false. This means most parts of the Bible could be trivially true (I affirm this). And if most parts of the Bible are trivially true, and if a sufficient amount of parts were true to warrant faith in Jesus as the Messiah (I also affirm this), then that could convince non-believers … without getting into the muddy waters of inerrancy.
I watched six of your videos on Dr. E on YouTube. How you agree and disagree with him is almost more important than the arguments you make. Rancor and contempt are unpleasant to watch and, in this situation, unChristian. As a side benefit, your passionate but dispassionate approach improves your credibility and makes me want to hear what you have to say on any subject.
Thanks so much!
Well done Dr Jaros, and thankyou for sticking with the discipline of academic rigour. As we all should. I think what we see on display here, as you reveal, from the cons evang sources you critique, is the psychology of what people will often do when they perceive an existential threat – as Prof Ehrman is certainly is seen to be. They will do and say just about anything, especially about the source of their perception injury, to defend themselves from the unthinkable – having to reconsider or even adjust their basis of belief. And note many of these would risk losing their job if they even hinted an open mind. How refreshing to hear your analysis!
And a question if I may. I have a big problem with the decades of time delay between the actual gospel events (especially the detailed dialogue) and then the recording into original manuscripts, let alone the other issues of copying, transmission, & curating by the church centuries later into a self-appointed Authority. If they are stories accepted in faith then OK but do YOU accept the 4 gospels as history of actual happenings / dialogue & if so then how? I struggle with this.
Hi Geoff,
Let me ask you, if your standard of historical reliability necessitates a short time gap between event and the original written account, do you likewise hold similar views for non-religious texts? If you do not, then I would ask that we simply apply the same principles for historical documents on the same standard. It seems the objection against doing so would not be as a historical concern, but one of philosophy (the philosophy of history). The time between Paul’s writings about the claims of the early church about Jesus of Nazareth is almost unparalleled in comparison to other ancient documents.
But I don’t have an issue with the time gap between the event and the Gospels. I think Vietnam vets can do a great job of conveying historical events, even details, from their experiences.
Thanks Dr Jaros for your response. If we are talking about history – any historical analysis – then the same standards ought to apply. That’s not the point I raised.
I raised a few issues – 1. The general difference between actual events vs their related history (which is evidence & records typically made later by humans), & 2. How the recollection of a single hearing of dialogue or a single sighting of an event – moreso for one or two years worth – 35 years later can be asserted to be accurate descriptions of actual happening. The extended prayer in John 17 is a problem example. Who could have been listening & then dictated it accurately to the author 65 years later? I just don’t buy it.
With all due respect to those who have served in the military, even if you can count yourself as a Vet also, they convey only their personal memories – we all do – (unless they are historians) and THIS should not be confused with actual happenings. Their memories are their memories but you can only say they do a great job recalling if you test against other sources. See Bart’s other work re memory.
Geoff, you make a good point about persons recalling their own memories (which may or may not be accurate, biased, etc.) But, if one were to interview multiple sources and compare … then we get an even better picture. And I think Luke’s account is perhaps the strongest of the 4 in that respect.
And PS. re Paul’s writing about church claims about Jesus (starting to sound like pass-the-whisper) it’s more significant concerning all the things about Jesus that he does NOT confirm or comment on. For all the emphasis modern conservative evangelicalism places on the authority of Paul & the foundational importance of aspects of Jesus’s life it does seem odd that Paul says so little. See Joel Scheller’s guest post 28th Dec.
Dr. Jaros, Thank you for your thoughtful comments highlighting Dr. Ehrman’s actual words and writings, rather than the out-of-context criticisms from conservative religious scholars. They seem to forget, or at least ignore, the fact that Dr.Ehrman is a history professor who, by his trade, seeks the earliest textual support for the stories (and the versions of those stories) that made their way into the New Testament. The essence of faith, as practiced by those conservatives, is accepting certain fundamental biblical propositions without the need for answers to the obvious factual questions raised by mainstream historians. Dr. Ehrman’s books repeatedly acknowledge his respect for those who practice their faith without the need to examine the historical underpinnings of their guiding documents. We should all aspire to be that respectful and objective, just as your comments reflect positively on you.
Thanks Truthserum, I appreciate your remark.
I do hold to a different view that Dr. Ehrman regarding people’s religious beliefs. I think our beliefs (even religious beliefs) about the way the world actually is should align with reality. So, if someone believes Muhammad took a night ride on Buraq, then they are making a claim about an historical event that actually occurred (unless the claim is *merely* a theological story). So, if the Gospels contain a large chunk of *merely* theological interpretation of historical events, then it would not matter for a hoot whether the views are accurate with reality (and whether other people should believe them, too).
But(!), if the Gospels contain reliable accounts of historical events that happened, then it would matter whether people’s views are accurate with reality … and the implication it has for people who do not (or do not want to) believe them.
Cheers!
But, Dr J, re your last paragraph in reply to Truthserum46, they don’t or at least are very minimal in relation to certain historically verifiable markers. The gospels are great stories, & great foundations for faith but are rather poor in historical quality. You even hint at this when you mention in the one sentence “reliable accounts of historical events that happened” and “believe”. What has belief got to do with the product of historical analysis?
Geoff,
I don’t think belief should be blind or a-rational. Belief should be informed by historical analysis.
Just like Paul wrote, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” So whether Jesus actually, historically, physically resurrected matters for one’s religious beliefs.
Sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough, & just as you highlight Prof Ehrman’s varying use of the word “know”, perhaps we are jumbling meanings of “believe”? If Jesus actually, physically resurrected then that’s a matter of fact not of belief, BUT it may or may not be historically verifiable. If none of us were there as eye-witnesses then “historically” is all we have to go on, & people can – & do – choose to believe what they will. (Prof Ehrman spells this out many times). A recent USA President seemed to have problems confusing facts & belief despite those facts!
And then there is the further question of what one then believes as the faith & doctrine consequences that follow.
Sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough, & just as you highlight Prof Ehrman’s varying use of the word “know”, perhaps we are jumbling meanings of “believe”? If Jesus actually, physically resurrected then that’s a matter of fact not of belief, BUT it may or may not be historically verifiable. If none of us were there as eye-witnesses then “historically” is all we have to go on, & people can – & do – choose to believe what they will. (Prof Ehrman spells this out many times). A recent USA President seemed to have problems confusing facts & belief despite those facts!
And then there is the further question of what one then believes as the faith & doctrine consequences that follow.
I enjoyed it! I will be watching the other parts too.