Jesus Interrupted By Bart Ehrman

[WinePusher]

Chapter 1: A Historical Assult On Faith

The Bible is filled with discrepanies, many of them irreconcilable contradiction. Moses did not write the Pentateuch and Matthew, Mark Luke and John did not write the Gospels. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught.

Major Points:

-Bart Ehrman begins his book by attempting to debunk many of the traditionally held beliefs of Christians and Biblical Fundamentalists by pointing out many "supposed" contradictions found in the Bible.
-He trys to draw a clear and distinct line between evanglical scholarship of biblical texts and his "historical-critical" method of the bible.

Questions for Debate:

In his first chapter, Bart Ehrman makes the following claims: The Exodus probably did not occur as described in the Hebrew Scriptures, the conquest of the promised land is based on legend, the teachings of the historical Jesus are misrepresented, and the Acts of the Apostles contains faulty information on the life of Paul.

1) Can the Bible be considered a historically, reliable document in light of Ehrman's claims?

2) Are Bart Ehrman's claims about scripture true, or are they simply wrong and a result of ignorance?

[WinePusher]

...Bart Ehrman begins his book by attempting to debunk many of the traditionally held beliefs of Christians and Biblical Fundamentalists...

I have to admit that I'm just now beginning to read Jesus Interrupted. It will take me awhile to get up to speed on this discussion, but I want to point out something that struck me immediately on reading Ehrman's preface. Ehrman seems to want to establish his credentials as an objective seeker of truth--so committed to truth that he even allowed the truth to take him where he didn't (initially) want to go. He is trying to establish rapport with the reader by these claims, he is trying to get them to say, "I'll really have to pay attention to what Ehrman says, because he is so obviously passionate about finding the truth, wherever it leads."

The reason why Ehrman's claims struck me is that despite what he is trying to communicate, I see him in a completely different light because of my own life situation. I see Ehrman as someone who is desperately trying to win affirmation from others. At first he sought affirmation from the fundamentalist group he initially joined. He wanted to prove his mettle to them. Then later, when exposed to the liberal or secular viewpoint, he again wanted to prove his mettle with them. And then now, in the populist tone of his writing, he again seeks to "prove" or "demonstrate" his mettle to his readers.

My own experience is completely different. I attended a conservative Christian school in which Christianity seemed "forced" on me. I rejected Christianity even at great personal cost to myself. Then I went to college and took the obligatory two courses in religion, where I was exposed to the liberal-secular point of view. Again, I felt the professors were trying to "force" my hand or even indoctrinate me into their views. Again I rebelled, again I refused to accept their conclusions, and again I was somewhat stigmatized for my failure to adopt my professors' point of view.

It wasn't until several years after college that I realized how I had first rejected fundamentalism, then I had rejected secular-liberalism, but in neither case had I bothered to actually read the entire Bible (as opposed to just the required snippets that were assigned in my classes). It wasn't until I read the whole Bible for myself that I decided it was better and more true than anything else I had ever read. And so I became an adult convert to Christianity.

So it seems to me that Ehrman is the type who wants affirmation; that is why he bounced around from one view to another. But I was willing to suffer "persecution" (mild by any historical sense, but still not negligent to a teenager or young adult) or stigmatization. I was more concerned about what was true than I was about what would get me affirmed by my peers or my professors.

In sum, I am not very much impressed by Ehrman's initial posturing. Since he attempts to engage in the pro hominem fallacy on his own behalf, I do not consider myself as engaging in any ad hominem fallacy simply because I present reasons why I am not impressed with his pro hominem fallacy.

Very good insight, EduChris. Hope you'll stick around as we go further into the book.

[WinePusher]

Chapter 2: A World Of Contradictions.

In this chapter, Ehrman points out many discrepencies in the New Testament (particularly in the Gospels and the Acts). He focuses on:

The Geneologies in Matthew and Luke
The Resurrection Narratives
The Trial Before Pontious Pilate
The Death Of Judas Iscariot
The Life And Writing Of Paul

And he concludes that:

1) The Bible cannot be viewed as completely inerrant
2) That we should read each Gospel individually, and not collectively
3) That the discrepencies in the historical events of Jesus and Paul make it difficult for us to determine what actually happened.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does Paul accurately represent the teachings of Jesus Christ?
2) Do the many differing views of the resurrection show that it is a false event?
3) Any additional thoughts on the information Bart Ehrman Presents?

[EduChris]

...Does Paul accurately represent the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I think there is a difference between the teachings of Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the insights that the disciples (and Paul) gained from their post-resurrection perspective. In the gospels, we have mainly the teaching of Jesus that was directed to "the lost sheep of Israel." After the resurrection, after Jesus had been rejected and crucified by the Jews, and then raised from the dead, the message turned outward toward the whole world. In other words, Paul and the other apostles make sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and this "sense" is consistent with, but not entirely the same as, Jesus' earthly teaching ministry prior to the crucifixion.

...Do the many differing views of the resurrection show that it is a false event?

No, the differing views are exactly what we should expect. Everyone has their own perspective, their own viewpoint. The events happened quickly, during the night and early morning, often when none of the disciples were present (or when just one or two disciples were present for parts of the proceedings). Much of the trial information would have been gleaned from witnesses after the fact. It is true that each gospel writer puts their particular spin on the events, but this is no different from what happens even today. I still remember an extreme example of this: the 2000 election between Bush and Gore. I have one book by a respected journalist who attempts to demonstrate how Bush "stole" the election, and another book by another respected writer who shows how it was Gore who tried to steal the election. Each author presents some of the facts while leaving out others. They are both "right" in a sense, but the reality was more complex than either author described. But the discrepancies in these two books in no way cast doubt that the election actually happened, or that a dispute occurred after the election.

...Any additional thoughts on the information Bart Ehrman Presents?

In this book Ehrman isn't even trying to make a scholarly case. This isn't to say that Ehrman wouldn't be capable of writing a scholarly account if he wanted to; rather, it is to say that Ehrman is here using popular-level "slash-and-burn" tactics. Ehrman first makes grandiose claims and then follows up those claims with rapid-fire bursts of "examples" which are meant to make the reader say, "Wow. I never knew all of this. Obviously the Bible can't be trusted." A more scholarly approach would not try to tamper with the jury first, and then throw up mounds of examples (some of which are relevant and some which really aren't relevant). Instead, a scholarly approach would first look at specific pieces of evidence, and then examine all of the possible interpretations of the evidence. The reader of a scholarly account would end up saying, "Wow. This is interesting. I had no idea that all these different interpretations were possible. Obviously we have to be careful how we interpret the Bible and its message. I'd like to investigate this further."

On another topic, Ehrman is not an OT scholar, and so what he says about the OT is simply a regurgitation of second-hand claims made by (very liberal) OT scholars. Ehrman's claims are not unique or original at all. I'd rather discuss Ehrman's specialty, the New Testament. If you want to look into a more conservative answer to the liberal OT scholars, K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament is a good place to start.

[theopoesis]

Sadly, I have not been able to find a copy of the book in a library around here. I think I'll have to just be an observer this time around.

In a day or two I'll leave the user group so I won't get credit for things I didn't do. Enjoy the discussion.

[McCulloch]

Does Paul accurately represent the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Here I agree with Ehrman and other scholars. The thrust and emphasis of Paul's teachings are clearly not derived from what Jesus said or did. Paul virtually never quotes Jesus, even when doing so would have supported his argument or validated his authority. There is nothing of Jesus' parables or sermons in Paul's epistles.

I think there is a difference between the teachings of Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the insights that the disciples (and Paul) gained from their post-resurrection perspective. In the gospels, we have mainly the teaching of Jesus that was directed to "the lost sheep of Israel." After the resurrection, after Jesus had been rejected and crucified by the Jews, and then raised from the dead, the message turned outward toward the whole world. In other words, Paul and the other apostles make sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and this "sense" is consistent with, but not entirely the same as, Jesus' earthly teaching ministry prior to the crucifixion.

This, to me, is just another form of dispensationalism. It does not make sense to me that the post-resurrection Jesus would support a different message from the man while he was alive. But then again, I don't quite understand why a God would support a different set of moral principles for his chosen people during the so-called Old Testament than He does under the new covenant.

Do the many differing views of the resurrection show that it is a false event?

No, the differing views are exactly what we should expect. Everyone has their own perspective, their own viewpoint. The events happened quickly, during the night and early morning, often when none of the disciples were present.

Yes, different people can have various perspectives on an event happening. One person might not notice the earthquake and the zombies, another might miss the presence of the second angel and all of them might have problems counting how many women went to the tomb. It is difficult to remember whether you are in Jerusalem or Galilee when an important, world changing event happens. Like, how many of us really remember where we were when we first heard about the events of September 11, 2001?

In this book Ehrman isn't even trying to make a scholarly case. This isn't to say that Ehrman wouldn't be capable of writing a scholarly account if he wanted to; rather, it is to say that Ehrman is here using popular-level "slash-and-burn" tactics. Ehrman first makes grandiose claims and then follows up those claims with rapid-fire bursts of "examples" which are meant to make the reader say, "Wow. I never knew all of this. Obviously the Bible can't be trusted." A more scholarly approach would not try to tamper with the jury first, and then throw up mounds of examples (some of which are relevant and some which really aren't relevant). Instead, a scholarly approach would first look at specific pieces of evidence, and then examine all of the possible interpretations of the evidence. The reader of a scholarly account would end up saying, "Wow. This is interesting. I had no idea that all these different interpretations were possible. Obviously we have to be careful how we interpret the Bible and its message. I'd like to investigate this further."

Yes, this offering from Ehrman is not a scholarly work. Ehrman does produce scholarly works but what he is doing here is packaging a whole lot of stuff that many in the scholarly community already admits to but that is not in the popular consciousness, making it available to popular audiences.

[Cathar1950]

...Bart Ehrman begins his book by attempting to debunk many of the traditionally held beliefs of Christians and Biblical Fundamentalists...

I have to admit that I'm just now beginning to read Jesus Interrupted. It will take me awhile to get up to speed on this discussion, but I want to point out something that struck me immediately on reading Ehrman's preface. Ehrman seems to want to establish his credentials as an objective seeker of truth--so committed to truth that he even allowed the truth to take him where he didn't (initially) want to go. He is trying to establish rapport with the reader by these claims, he is trying to get them to say, "I'll really have to pay attention to what Ehrman says, because he is so obviously passionate about finding the truth, wherever it leads."

The reason why Ehrman's claims struck me is that despite what he is trying to communicate, I see him in a completely different light because of my own life situation. I see Ehrman as someone who is desperately trying to win affirmation from others. At first he sought affirmation from the fundamentalist group he initially joined. He wanted to prove his mettle to them. Then later, when exposed to the liberal or secular viewpoint, he again wanted to prove his mettle with them. And then now, in the populist tone of his writing, he again seeks to "prove" or "demonstrate" his mettle to his readers.

My own experience is completely different. I attended a conservative Christian school in which Christianity seemed "forced" on me. I rejected Christianity even at great personal cost to myself. Then I went to college and took the obligatory two courses in religion, where I was exposed to the liberal-secular point of view. Again, I felt the professors were trying to "force" my hand or even indoctrinate me into their views. Again I rebelled, again I refused to accept their conclusions, and again I was somewhat stigmatized for my failure to adopt my professors' point of view.

It wasn't until several years after college that I realized how I had first rejected fundamentalism, then I had rejected secular-liberalism, but in neither case had I bothered to actually read the entire Bible (as opposed to just the required snippets that were assigned in my classes). It wasn't until I read the whole Bible for myself that I decided it was better and more true than anything else I had ever read. And so I became an adult convert to Christianity.

So it seems to me that Ehrman is the type who wants affirmation; that is why he bounced around from one view to another. But I was willing to suffer "persecution" (mild by any historical sense, but still not negligent to a teenager or young adult) or stigmatization. I was more concerned about what was true than I was about what would get me affirmed by my peers or my professors.

In sum, I am not very much impressed by Ehrman's initial posturing. Since he attempts to engage in the pro hominem fallacy on his own behalf, I do not consider myself as engaging in any ad hominem fallacy simply because I present reasons why I am not impressed with his pro hominem fallacy.

Very good insight, EduChris. Hope you'll stick around as we go further into the book.

I don't see any insight and I am not ready to move on to chapter 2 yet as I have only addressed the first post.
The only posturing going on is by those here trying to find fault with Ehrman's scholarship and character. I am reminded of toothless wolves(apologist) in sheep clothing (pseudo-intellectual)where unable to take a bite have only managed slobber all over the meal and make it rather unappetizing. I will get into this further in the other thread where your anti-Bart purposes are more clear.

[Cathar1950]

In his first chapter, Bart Ehrman makes the following claims: The Exodus probably did not occur as described in the Hebrew Scriptures, the conquest of the promised land is based on legend, the teachings of the historical Jesus are misrepresented, and the Acts of the Apostles contains faulty information on the life of Paul.

These are quite extraordinary claims to make, and unfortunatly Ehrman makes no attempt to support these claims in his 1st Chapter. Hopefully, throughout the rest of his book, he will support these with evidence. [/quote]

They are common knowledge in any major university. His purpose is to show how the historical critical methods have often presented an assault upon faith or belief especially among those that insist it is all history and factual explicit or not.
It only mentions a few of the conflicts and makes no attempt and proving the scholarship for the last two hundred years or the last 50 in Archaeology
.

-The Exodus probably did not occur as described in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Unless Ehrman, or someone on here, can point out the errors or flaws in the Book of Exodus, I see no reason why we should doubt the text. It is consistent with Near Eastern History, that the Israelites were in Egypt for a long period of time and a figure "Moses" came and liberated them from Pharoah. One of the only ways out of Egypt and into the "Promised Land" was through the Red Sea.


And once they came our of the red sea the Israelites would automatically hit the Sinai Desert, where the Bible claims they wandered for 40 years.

There are lots of reasons to doubt the text and there are arguments even among theists.
The stories or tales are not consistent with the data or with each other and just because there are a limited number of ways out doesn’t mean that everything is true and factual.

We have a number of threads on the subject.

Archaeological evidence for the Exodus
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ses+exodus

The Bible and archaeology http://debati ... ses+exodus

A second series of biblical events revolves around the slavery of the Jewish people in Egypt, the miraculous escape of 600,000 led by Moses, their wandering in the wilderness for forty years, their swift conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the slaughter of all the original inhabitants. These events, memorialized in major Jewish festivals, occupy four of the first five books of the Bible traditionally attributed to Moses. Physical evidence and historical texts confirm that Canaanites had traditionally settled in the prosperous east delta region of Egypt, particularly in times of drought, famine, and war. Some came as landless conscripts and prisoners of war, others as farmers, herders, or tradesmen. Egyptian historians tell of the Hyksos, Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.

Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:

Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.
[...]
But if the Israelites did not flee Egypt and invade Canaan, who were they? After the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, Jewish archeologists began to thoroughly explore, map, and analyze the hill country of Judah, looking for settlement patterns, evidence of lifestyles, and changes in demography and the environment.

These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages -- all apparently established within the span of a few generations -- indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.[...]

As Canaanite cities collapsed, the pastoralists in the hills were forced to grow their own grain and produce, resulting in settlements. Thus, the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan -- they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people -- the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -- irony of ironies -- themselves originally Canaanites!
[...]
For centuries, however, Jews, Christians, and Moslems have believed that events in their racial and religious history are recorded in the Old Testament. Even today many continue to believe that the biblical account is literally true, or at least basically accurate. Scholarly findings in archeology, textual analysis, history, and newly translated ancient documents all point to a reality which may be difficult for many traditional and fundamentalist believers to reconcile with a faith that depends on biblical events, promises, prophecies, and revelations being historical facts. Nonetheless, this knowledge represents a new dawning in our understanding of these religions and their ancient history.

(From Sunrise magazine, February/March 2003; copyright © 2003 Theosophical University Press)

Israel Finkelstein is an Israeli archaeologist and academic. He is currently the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and is also the co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel. Previously, he served as Director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University from 1996-2002. In 2005 he received the Dan David Prize. Born in Petah Tikva, he completed his studies at Tel Aviv University, writing his Ph.D. thesis on The Izbet Sartah excavations, for which he was also the Field Director.

Question for debate: Is the archeological evidence supporting the literal truth of the Exodus overstated by Christian apologists?

-The Conquest of the Promised Land is based on Legend.

Unfortunatly I cannot address this in great detail because Ehrman's claim is very shallow and unsupported. It is a fact that the Israel conquered the Promised Land, and the walls of Jericho have been recovered, so what's the issue here?

What is shallow and unsupported are you complains to such a point you can’t even think of any and want to blame that on him too. How are his claims shallow?
What do you find shallow? Tell us something deep. It isn’t a fact “that the Israel conquered the Promised Land�and the data doesn’t support it as much more except as something Josiah would have liked to believed as justification for their expansion and royal ideology and temple cult.
We also have threads for this.
Archaeological evidence for the Exodus
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ses+exodus

The Bible and archaeology
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ses+exodus

-The Gospels misrepresent the teachings of the Historical Jesus.

This is a huge topic in and of itself that a group of people known as the Jesus Seminar tried to discern. But the onus is on the atheist to disprove the Gospel as an accurate representation of Jesus' life and teachings.

It is not only atheists that understand the gospels.
Just saying it isn’t true and prove it is not true doesn’t count and making claims about the actual words is up to you to prove.

-The Acts of the Apostles contains Faulty Information of the Life of Paul.

Another unsupported claim. The chronology of the Acts is consistent with the dating of Paul's many letters, but this can be addressed in more detail later on.

How does the dating or chronology show anything?

How Acts subverts Galatians
Filed under: BOOK REVIEWS & NOTES,Luke-Acts,Paul and his letters,RELIGION,Tyson: Marcion and Luke-Acts — neilgodfrey @ 3:27 pm
There are two different stories, their differences well known, of the circumstances surrounding Paul’s conversion and the later Jerusalem Conference in the New Testament.
The Two Conversions
In the Book of Acts (9:1-30) we read that
1. Paul was persecuting the church until –
2. Paul was struck down by a divine call on his way to Damascus,
3. that he was baptized in Damascus by a lowly disciple (Ananias),
4. and after some time (“many days�) he fled to Jerusalem because of Jewish persecution,
5. His contacts in Jerusalem were limited but only on first arriving
6. until Barnabas acted as his Janus-like gateway by taking him to the apostles –
7. who, we learn elsewhere in Acts, were led by Peter and James
8. Brethren took him away to Caesarea and then to Tarsus to protect him from the Hellenists
In the Epistle to the Galatians (1:13-24) we read a different story.
1. Paul used to persecute the church until –
2. Paul says Christ revealed himself by revelation “in him�,
3. that he then went to Arabia.
4. Only after he had been in Arabia did he return to Damascus.
5. After three years in Damascus he went to Jerusalem because he wanted to see Peter
6. His contacts in Jerusalem remained limited — the Judean churches did not see Paul
7. He met Peter (staying with him 15 days) and James only.
8. Paul then returned to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
One can conclude that the author of Acts did not know of the Galatians letter. But I think it more likely that the author of Acts composed a narrative polemic against the letter. Each of the differences can be accounted for as a polemical response to some point in the Galatians account. . . .
Arabia versus Damascus
In Acts it is Damascus that is the geographic focus of Paul’s conversion experience; in Galatians the notable geographical association is Arabia. N.T. Wright makes a reasonable case in his 1996 JBL article (115, 683-692), Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (Galatians 1:17) that the author of the Galatians letter was casting himself as one who stood in the line of biblical prophets:
• he was separated “from his mothers womb�, 1.15 (compare Jeremiah 1.5; and Isaiah 49.1)
• he was known for his religious zeal — even killing those opposed to the law, 1.13-14 (compare Phineas and Elijah, Nu.25 and 1 Ki.18)
• he went to Arabia in response to his call from God, and the same letter spoke of Arabia as being the place of Mount Sinai, 4.25 (compare Moses and Elijah, Ex.3 and 1 Ki.19)
• he returned from Arabia to Damascus, 1.17 (compare Elijah, 1 Ki.19.15)
The author of Acts on the other hand had a different agenda, which was to cut Paul down to a subordinate position to the Jerusalem apostles. The various scholarly attempts to rationalize or harmonize the Paul of Acts with the Paul of the epistles, including Galatians, have struck me as strained to breaking point, but this is another discussion. It is easiest to read Acts treatment of Paul as an attempt to portray Paul in many ways echoing the accomplishments of Peter, but at the same time subordinate and conforming to the teachings sealed with the authority of Jerusalem. Acts rejects the Paul of the letter who sniffs at the status of Cephas, James and John, and who reminds readers he owes nothing of his conversion or gospel message to them.
The independent status and prophetic pretensions of the author of Galatians were all too clear to the author of Acts. The Acts narrative would erase anything that suggested an allusion to the callings of Moses and Elijah. The journey to Arabia had to be deleted because of its holy mountain associations, especially when referenced beside the prophetic allusion of being separated from his mother’s womb. Gentile Damascus, referenced as an aside to the Arabian journey in the letter, would be taken by the Acts narrator and made the central point of Paul’s conversion instead. And so would any reference to being destined for his role, like Jeremiah, from the time of his conception.
Going to Jerusalem
According to the letter the reason Paul went to Jerusalem was to see Peter (Cephas). And he made this journey three years after his conversion. That smacks of both independence (the 3 year wait) and equality (seeking a personal meeting) between the two apostles.
The narrator has a different plan for Paul. He does not of his own volition decide to go and see Peter face to face. Rather, he is forced to flee Damascus because of persecution, and when he escapes to Jerusalem he does not seek out Peter or any of the apostles, but merely the other common disciples.
And the three years wait is reduced to a more modest “many days� before reaching Jerusalem, too.
So in Acts Paul does not seek out Peter, nor even go to Jerusalem, of his own volition. This, and the change from “three years� to “many days� serves to dilute the independence factor that is stressed so pointedly in Galatians. Acts further challenges the theme of independence found in Galatians by portraying Paul as seeing his place with the disciples, not the apostles.
Nevertheless, to explain knowledge of Paul’s meeting with Peter, the narrator brings in Barnabas to introduce him to the apostles. Peter is not singled out at all, although the reader is well aware that Peter would be included among those he met. But above all, it is not Paul who can, like an equal, walk up to Peter and introduce himself. He must be led to the apostles by the good graces of Barnabas. The author of Acts could not be make Paul’s status vis a vis the apostles any clearer — nor more contrary to what Galatians implies.
Galatians also emphasizes the shortness of Paul’s stay in Jerusalem. It was, we are told, only fifteen days. There is no such time limitation intimated in Acts.
Not known to the disciples in Judea
Paul in Galatians emphasizes that he never mixed with the churches in Jerusalem and Judea but liaised exclusively with the Peter and James. He presents himself as an equal of the apostles and in no way of a lesser rank, and also as one who has no calling to preach to the Jews. His remit is to the gentiles only. Peter’s and Paul’s commissions do not overlap.
How does Acts explain the failure of the Jewish churches to meet with Paul? By declaring they were afraid of his reputation as a persecutor. They refused to see him, not trusting his attempts to see them. But Acts wants to portray the church as a harmonious new Israel where all, Jew and gentile, are one in Christ. It attempts to gloss over the evidence of unresolved divisions. So after Paul is introduced to the apostles through Barnabas, the narrative is able to inform us that Paul was able to go freely in and out among all in Jerusalem. Paul preaches to Jews first, but also to gentiles.
Paul goes to Syria and Cilicia, but when and in what capacity?
Galatians says Paul went after his visit with Peter to Syria and Cilicia. The letter has also made it clear that Paul is the apostle to the gentiles while Peter’s responsibility is the Jews. The inevitable conclusion is that Syria and Cilicia are Paul’s territory, gentile churches, while Judea belongs to Peter.
Acts does describe a Paul leaving a conference with the Jerusalem apostles and going to Syria and Cilicia, but the narrator sets it years later than the time given for it in Galatians. The timing is critical in Acts, because in Acts Paul does not leave for these regions until after he has submitted to the ruling James in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). So when Paul does leave Jerusalem for Syria and Cilicia it is to “strengthen the churches�, but also to carry the message from the Jerusalem authorities (15.41).
Acts will have Jew and gentile united, and Peter sometimes addresses gentiles, and Paul sometimes addresses Jews, and Jew and gentile are to be one in Christ. So Paul is sent back to his hometown, Tarsus, to await the time for his mission to preach before “gentiles, kings and the children of Israel� (9.15).
Once again we see the authority of Paul (this time over the churches in Syria and Cilicia) that is expressed in Galatians countered by the Acts narrative.
And this Syria-Cilicia visit brings us to the next set of comparisons:
The Second Jerusalem Meeting and Its Aftermath in Antioch
In the book of Acts (15:1-16:3) we read that
1. Brethren arrived in Antioch from Judea
2. causing a dispute in the church.
3. Paul and Barnabas
4. were sent by the churches to Jerusalem
5. to seek a resolution to the conflict.
6. Peter spoke and James also spoke as the leader with the final decision
7. and issued the decree to settle the matter harmoniously
8. Back in Antioch Paul and Barnabas
9. separated as a result of a disagreement (over John Mark)
10. Paul circumcised half-Greek Timothy to please the Jews.
In the letter to the Galatians (2:1-21) we read that
1. Paul was inspired by God to go to Jerusalem
2. and he took Barnabas with him
3. to discuss privately the gospel he preached with the Jerusalem leaders
4. Paul did not circumcise the Greek Titus to please the “false brethren�.
5. Paul addressed James, Peter (Cephas) and John
6. There was harmonious agreement
7. Peter and other arrived in Antioch from James in Jerusalem
8. Causing a dispute (with Paul) in the church
9. Paul disputed sharply with them, and with Peter in particular
10. In this Antioch dispute Barnabas separated himself from Paul
The same polemical and theological differences that explained the variant conversion stories account for the divergences here, too.
The motivation to go to Jerusalem
The author of Galatians establishes Paul’s independent authority by declaring he went to Jerusalem as the result of a divine revelation.
Acts explains that Paul was sent up to Jerusalem by the churches. It was their bidding, not his, that led him to go. Paul is not the authoritative independent agent in Acts that he is in Galatians.
Dispute resolution technique
Galatians, apparently from the pen of Paul, informs its readers that James, Peter and John all agreed with Paul in Jerusalem. But afterwards back in Antioch, these men reneged — Peter and others were sent by James to preach observance to Jewish customs. Paul declares what he said to Peter about it, and then drops the subject leaving his own words the last for the reader to hear on the matter.
The author of Acts resolves this problem of disunity by moving the Antioch dispute to the beginning of the narrative. So instead of the story of the conference blowing up with a subsequent dispute in Antioch as it does in Galatians, Acts rearranges the story so that the Antioch dispute initiates the Jerusalem conference — where it is harmoniously resolved.
Pillars and presidents
In Galatians Paul admits James, Peter and John are reputed to be pillars in the church, but their reputations mean nothing to him. He is every bit their equal.
In Acts Paul and Barnabas are lost in the crowd. The elders and apostles began by opening the issues. Then Peter spoke, then he let Barnabas and Paul (in that order — Paul taking second place) speak to illustrate the point Peter had just made. Finally James rises to announce his binding decision. He is clearly the leader to which all others defer.
A purpose of Acts is clearly to subordinate Paul to the Jerusalem authorities and all that they represented theologically against what many took to be an independent Pauline line.
The circumcision conflict
In Galatians Paul vociferously declares he would not be intimidated by “false brethren� who wanted him to circumcise the Greek Titus. He is so opposed to circumcision that he declares in the same letter that anyone preaching this has no place in Christ.
In Acts, the author delineates a conciliatory Paul who can be all things to all races, and he does submit to the sensitivities of the Jews by having the half-Greek Timothy circumcised.
Obviously the uncircumcised Titus would not have served the theological interests of the author of Acts. And if, as some have suggested, the Pauline Pastorals are also from the hand of the final redactor of Acts, then we can see Paul having a final swipe at Titus by announcing that he was one of many who had abandoned him in his final days (2 Tim. 4.10).
The Paul-Barnabas split
Galatians explained that the split between Paul and Barnabas was over Jewish customs and law observance. Barnabas sided with Peter and James, the Jerusalem led church.
This was another problem for the author of Acts wanting to promote a history of catholic harmony. He solved this problem by instigating a different reason for the dispute. He chose to focus on the personalities and steer clear of the doctrinal issues. He turned a doctrinal split into a personality clash. Two well-meaning men were simply too strong minded to get along together. They each needed to choose their own assistants whom they best felt comfortable with. An easy fix.

[WinePusher]

Does Paul accurately represent the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Here I agree with Ehrman and other scholars. The thrust and emphasis of Paul's teachings are clearly not derived from what Jesus said or did. Paul virtually never quotes Jesus, even when doing so would have supported his argument or validated his authority. There is nothing of Jesus' parables or sermons in Paul's epistles.

I must admitt, the first time I ever heard someone question the veracity of Paul's theology was when I first joined this forum, and I never really got it.

If you're going to suggest Paul teachings aren't derived from Jesus' teachings, there should be some contradictions or inconsistencies in their theologies. If Paul really doesn't represent Jesus' teachings, I would have thought the early church fathers would have thrown his works in with the other Gnostic texts, rather then add them to the biblical canon.

Do the many differing views of the resurrection show that it is a false event?

No, the differing views are exactly what we should expect. Everyone has their own perspective, their own viewpoint. The events happened quickly, during the night and early morning, often when none of the disciples were present.

Exactly, many of these so called "discrepencies" can be accounted for by the fact that different people with different perspectives wrote these texts.

Yes, this offering from Ehrman is not a scholarly work. Ehrman does produce scholarly works but what he is doing here is packaging a whole lot of stuff that many in the scholarly community already admits to but that is not in the popular consciousness, making it available to popular audiences.

I would like to explore the reason why Ehrman went from an evangelical to an agnostic for a brief moment. He claims that his scholarship "eroded" his faith, and I also think that prominent biblical scholars such as Marvin Meyer and Elaine Pagels also consider themselves agnostic.

I really don't think that scholarship would erode a person's faith; while critically reading the bible would revel many inconsistencies and contradictions to postulated Evangelical theories (like how Moses wrote the Pentateuch) it shouldn't neccesarily cause someone to disbelieve in God. Ehrman's personal story seems to be that he rejected Christianity based on the problem of evil rather then biblical inconsistencies, so I don't buy the notion that biblical scholarship would erode a person's faith.

[Cathar1950]

It seems this so-called “Book Debate�, much like the other threads on Dr. Ehrman
Have turned into a Bart Bashing sessions with little or no substance and a lot of posturing, bluster, pretentiousness, And even some swagger.

...Bart Ehrman begins his book by attempting to debunk many of the traditionally held beliefs of Christians and Biblical Fundamentalists...

I have to admit that I'm just now beginning to read Jesus Interrupted. It will take me awhile to get up to speed on this discussion

I believe you have given us more insight into your own desires to feel accepted, desperation, and a need for affirmation as you seeks to "prove" or "demonstrate" your mettle to his readers then any insights concerning what you have not yet read.

but I want to point out something that
struck me
immediately on reading Ehrman's preface.
Ehrman
seems to want
to establish his credentials as an objective seeker of truth--so committed to truth that he even allowed the truth to take him where he didn't (initially) want to go.

His credentials as an objective seeker of truth and scholar are already known and it is you and other “believers� That are trying to questions his motives with nothing more then your own projections. “Struck me� is hardly objective or scholarly and “seems to want� doesn’t seem to even grasp his points as you replace them with some superficial projection. I tend to think he might have suffered some cultural shock but his point was tha much of this stuff is new to those coming from Evangelical backgrounds as you have shown by example.

He is trying to establish rapport with the reader
by these claims,

he is trying to get them to say,

"I'll really have to pay attention to what Ehrman says, because he is so obviously passionate about finding the truth, wherever it leads."

Most writers, you may be an exception, are trying to establish rapport with their readers, but he is not trying to get them to say any such thing. It is entirely the product of your imagination and projections. Do you apologists and conservative writers lack passion? They like you certainly lack the desire to find truth no matter where it leads in favor of presumptions.

The reason why Ehrman's claims
struck me is
that despite what he is trying to communicate, I see him in a completely different light because of my own life situation.
I see Ehrman as someone who is
desperately trying to win affirmation from others.

This is obviously the source of your projections as you were “desperately trying to win affirmation from others� at a more or less Liberal school where you failed.

At first
he sought affirmation from the fundamentalist group he initially joined.

He wanted to prove his mettle to them.

Where does he say that?

Then later, when exposed to the liberal or secular viewpoint,
he again wanted to prove his mettle with them.
‘

And then now, in the populist tone of his writing,
he again seeks to "prove" or "demonstrate" his mettle to his readers.

What he is trying to do is get the scholarly understanding out there beyond the classroom and seminaries to the populace and has done a pretty good job at being readable.

My own experience is completely different.
I attended a conservative Christian school in which Christianity seemed "forced" on me.

It is called indoctrination.

I rejected Christianity even at great personal cost to myself.

Oh how you must have suffered.

Then I went to college and took the obligatory two courses in religion, where I was exposed to the liberal-secular point of view

. Again, I felt the professors were trying to "force" my hand
or even indoctrinate me into their views
Being “forced� seems to be a common experience for you and maybe you have some personal problem you are taking out Ehrman rather then looking at his work.

. Again I rebelled, again I refused to accept their conclusions, and again
I was somewhat stigmatized for my failure to adopt my professors' point of view.

It happens, I recall disagreeing with a professor in grad school and it cost me a grade, I took the class again with someone else. I remember being told in a Neo-Orthodox seminary by my adviser that I was creative, original and wrong when I disagreed with the fall and original sin. But I was ahead of the game as my ideas related to Jewish thought on the subject. My interests were more in the areas of history, anthropology, psychology and sociology so I left the seminary.

It wasn't until several years after college that I realized

how I had first rejected fundamentalism,
then I had rejected secular-liberalism,
but in neither case had I bothered to actually read the entire Bible (as opposed to just the required snippets that were assigned in my classes).
It wasn't until I read the whole Bible for myself that I decided it was better and more true than anything else I had ever read.
And so I became an adult convert to Christianity.

It looks like you that is bouncing around not Ehrman.
I find it amazing that even after taking both fundamentalist and liberal courses you still had not read the Bible. I also question your reading ablity and the amount of reading as you claim the Bible “is better and more true than anything else I had ever read�. It looks to me that the fundamentalist indoctrination forced upon you took and as Mark A.Noll points out in his book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind�, the Fundamentalist have left their effect on the Evangelical mind as the critical methods divided Evangelicals.
Where you really an adult convert or did you just come back to you fundamentalist evangelical roots for affirmation?

So it seems to me that Ehrman is the type who wants affirmation; that is why he bounced around from one view to another. But I was willing to suffer "persecution" (mild by any historical sense, but still not negligent to a teenager or young adult) or stigmatization.

How do you know what type he is? I don’t see anything of these claims or “insights� in his material as we can see in yours. It was you that has bounced where he matured and came to grips with his studies. Even the historical critical didn’t errod his faith as he explans there are many devoted Christians tha have no problem with the methods.
What we see in your use of the methods is a rather slanded use where they are ok if the agree with you doctrines but in error or biased when they disagree or show your doctrines to be wrong, misguided and non-biblically presented.

Again you are projecting you own needs or desires as well as experiences as it was you that has jumped around or bounced back and froth while with Erdmann we can see growth and maturity.

I was more concerned about what was true than I was about what would get me affirmed by my peers or my professors.

I think we can say this of Ehrman but hardly of yourself as you have shown over and over in these Ehrman threads.

I am not very much impressed by Ehrman's initial posturing.
Since he attempts to engage in the pro hominem fallacy on his own behalf,

I do not consider myself as engaging in any ad hominem fallacy simply because I present reasons why I am not impressed with his pro hominem fallacy.

Your whole post was an ad hominem fallacy and you seem mostly intent upon impressing yourself and maybe WinePusher. But he doesn’t engage in any such fallacy of pro hominem and like the rest of you r post the claim lack substance or example.
I tend to see your whole approach as Disingenuous as in less then straightforward.

[McCulloch]

I must admitt, the first time I ever heard someone question the veracity of Paul's theology was when I first joined this forum, and I never really got it.

You really aught to get out more. This is not a new idea. The Ebionites and Nazarenes were Jewish Christians who rejected Paul. There are a large number of non-canonical texts, some of which have been discovered during the last hundred years, and which show the many movements and strands of thought emanating from Jesus' life and teaching or which may be contemporary with them, some of which can be contrasted with Paul's thought. Robert Eisenman sees Pauline Christianity as a method of taming a dangerous sect among radical Jews and making it palatable to Roman authorities. Is the view of the nineteenth century German theologian F.C. Baur, founder of the Tübingen school, that Paul was utterly opposed to the disciples, based upon his view that Acts was late and unreliable and who contended that Catholic Christianity was a synthesis of the views of Paul and the Judaising church in Jerusalem. Now the Tübingen position has been generally abandoned, but the view that Paul took over the faith and transformed the Jewish teacher to the Son of God is still widely taught.

If you're going to suggest Paul teachings aren't derived from Jesus' teachings, there should be some contradictions or inconsistencies in their theologies.

It is more subtle than that. What we know about Jesus is pretty well redacted through the eyes of the followers of Paul. The most blatant contradictions and inconsistencies were removed, expunged or rejected as heretical.

If Paul really doesn't represent Jesus' teachings, I would have thought the early church fathers would have thrown his works in with the other Gnostic texts, rather then add them to the biblical canon.

The early church fathers, for the most part, were apologists for Paul, who shoe horned Jesus into Paul's new religious movement. The gnostic texts, representing a different religious tradition with perhaps earlier roots were thrown out by the Pauline movement.

I really don't think that scholarship would erode a person's faith; while critically reading the bible would revel many inconsistencies and contradictions to postulated Evangelical theories (like how Moses wrote the Pentateuch) it shouldn't necessarily cause someone to disbelieve in God. Ehrman's personal story seems to be that he rejected Christianity based on the problem of evil rather then biblical inconsistencies, so I don't buy the notion that biblical scholarship would erode a person's faith.

The more you know about the Bible, the more you learn that it is not God breathed. It is a human document. If the Bible is not a reliable witness to God, then the very existence of God can be questioned.