Jesus Interrupted By Bart Ehrman

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher

Jesus Interrupted By Bart Ehrman

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Chapter 1: A Historical Assult On Faith
Bart Ehrman wrote: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?

Druijf
Student
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:25 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post #101

Post by Druijf »

WinePusher wrote: The Q source would account for commonalities between Matthew and Luke, but as Wikipedia rightly points out, one would think that the Early Church would have preserved such documents. So, to recap, the Q source is certainly a viable explanation for the Synoptic Gospels, but when competing with the explanation that eye-witnesses wrote the texts, it loses.
I don't think this argument against the 2 document hypothesis, that Q if existed would have provailed, is strong enough to put the whole theory aside. That eye-witnesses wrote the texts is an explanation that leaves a great deal more unaccounted for, such as the high degree of verbal agreement and common order in the Double Tradition (that is why Q is perceived as a written, Greek source).
WinePusher wrote: Well, since both Gospels agree on major parts of the event, such as the day of the death, the possibility of original translation and copying errors is likely. But even if I concede to you that you are right, this would hardly be a damning indictement of Gospels. You're using one small information set to reach a broad range conclusion that the Gospels aren't eye-witness accounts.
Let me first point out that out I don't think it is a "damning indictment" to state that the Gospel are not eyewitness-reports and that a lot of material in the gospels is not factual history (and a lot of christians would agree with me).

Second, the details must be accounted for. You can't do gospel research well if you don't have eye for details.

Third, the "eye-witness account"-theory maybe your default position and that of your church community, this is not so for everybody, scholars specialized in gospel research generally don't perceive them as such.

Fourth, if you want to maintain that "the possibility of original translation and copying errors is likely" is helpful in this case, you must argue where, why and how. John's portrayal of Jesus dying during Passover seems intentional, since he has John the Baptist calling Jesus `the Lamb of God' and John 19:36 refers to Exodus 12:46.

I'll first point out that all the Gospels have this recorded. And yes, you are right in saying that it is possible that Jesus did this twice. Also, John does not write in a way that chronciles Jesus' ministry event by event. John 13:1 says points out that the Passover was near, so that event probably happened at the end of Jesus' ministry.
Please point out why John does not have to be read chronologically, while he does presents it in this way by using chronological seams to tie the individual stories together ("after this..., the next day ... etc.)

Druijf
Student
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:25 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post #102

Post by Druijf »

"Indeed, however if we were to go by this theory Mark, and most of Matthew and Luke are still unaccounted for."
Yes, but unaccounted for doesn't mean that we thus should think of them as historical or based on eyewitness reports. There are a lot of scenario's how a story about Jesus could arise in the early church communities.

User avatar
Adamoriens
Sage
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:13 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post #103

Post by Adamoriens »

WinePusher wrote:
Adamoriens wrote:You most certainly just did! By stating that I have to show that the New Testament is literally inaccurate you assume by default that they are indeed factual. Again, most historians wouldn't accept that all ancient narratives are true and accurate simply by virtue of being written down.
No, I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion. If you think that the New Testament is literally inaccurate, then give your reasons.
Which assertion? After perusing my posts carefully I could find no such claim. I did claim that literal inaccuracy is possible. Since Lewis considers possibilities (liar, lunatic, or Lord) and excludes this one, the Trilemma seems to me fallacious.
WinePusher wrote:
Adamoriens wrote:You've ignored the whole issue: how likely is it that illiterate Aramaic-speaking working-class men in a war-torn region would learn to read and write Koine Greek and become relatively sophisticated narrative authors?
I have provided my reasons:

-There is no reason to think that the Apostles did not know Greek
-Greek was a dominant language during the Roman Empire, it is regarded as modern day english, a universal language that tied the empire together
-Greek Scribes could have supplemented parts of the Gospels that seem to be above and beyond Rudimentary Greek through oral dictation.
I think we're at an impasse here. Perhaps we could go through and discuss each gospel in detail? If you agree, we could start with the earliest, Mark.
WinePusher wrote:
WinePusher wrote:Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.
Adamoriens wrote:The highly developed theology and higher Christology of John would seem to indicate it to be a later development. In retrospect I see that describing the Gospel of John as entirely legend was rash.
Yes, this is consistent with biblical scholarship, John was the last canonical gospel to be written. But this doesn't refute my syllogism, the conclusion that John wrote from an eye-witness perspective still stands.


I think it would be more fruitful to discuss any given gospel more closely. There are excellent reasons to think the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness or is not historically accurate.
WinePusher wrote:
Adamoriens wrote:Your support of said argument does the same. I for one reject the Trilemma because it does not account for the possibility that the Bible is historically inaccurate (because of myth development, fabrication or exaggeration etc etc.). So long as the Bible can be shown to be possibly inaccurate, the Trilemma is moot.
The "myth" position is extremely fringe and out of mainstream biblical scholarship. If you to regard the Gospel narratives as myth you would subsequently have to regard the Early Church persecutions and the extra-biblical references as myth.
I am not endorsing the full or partial "mythicist" position, although I think it is often misunderstood and caricatured. You seem to be making quite a few appeals to authority for someone who himself endorses a fringe position; namely, that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I think I could name all the mainstream scholars who endorse this position on one hand.

What you have not done is responded to my question about the mass resurrection in Matthew. Does it appear to be legendary passage/fragment or not?
WinePusher wrote:
Adamoriens wrote:You've repeatedly used the qualifier "only" to describe the twenty year time span (at best) between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Mark. I would suggest that twenty years is a considerable time; is it possible that the oral traditions changed or were fabricated in this time, rendering any hope for complete historicity lost?
Yes, I do use that qualifer because when we study other ancient documents that were written centuries after the events, there accuracy is not called into question. From another thread:

"In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies"—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.� -- Historian, William Durant

“The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

The fact is when atheists tend to approach the Bible, they raise the bar (either intentionally or unintentionally) that are not conventional means of discerning history.
I've considered this, but still do not however consider this hypocritical. No-one asks us to believe that Alexander really unraveled the Gordian knot or that he was born of a virgin. Christians make the claim that Jesus indeed turned water to wine or walked on the surface of a lake, and that he on several occasions revived dead bodies and that he was resurrected himself. Not only do Christians believe this, they often claim this is the only rational response to the evidence. I believe I am fully justified in lifting the bar. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If we took an even-handed approach and simply lay the Gospels alongside all other ancient historical sources (as I think we should) I think you'll find that the outcome would be very different from the one you desire.

In any case, I think this exchange would be more fruitful if we took it to a more specific level. Since you favor the Gospel of John, perhaps we could start a new thread under the title of "Is the Gospel of John an Eyewitness Account?" Maybe with something about historical reliability as the sub-heading, since that's really the heart of the matter. If you would rather I do the honours, PM me or respond here and I'll come up with sort of case against your proposition.

WinePusher

Post #104

Post by WinePusher »

Druijf wrote:I don't think this argument against the 2 document hypothesis, that Q if existed would have provailed, is strong enough to put the whole theory aside. That eye-witnesses wrote the texts is an explanation that leaves a great deal more unaccounted for, such as the high degree of verbal agreement and common order in the Double Tradition (that is why Q is perceived as a written, Greek source).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by verbal agreement? If you mean similar sentence and gramatical structure, I don't see how this is a problem.
WinePusher wrote:Well, since both Gospels agree on major parts of the event, such as the day of the death, the possibility of original translation and copying errors is likely. But even if I concede to you that you are right, this would hardly be a damning indictement of Gospels. You're using one small information set to reach a broad range conclusion that the Gospels aren't eye-witness accounts.
Druijf wrote:Let me first point out that out I don't think it is a "damning indictment" to state that the Gospel are not eyewitness-reports and that a lot of material in the gospels is not factual history (and a lot of christians would agree with me).
I'm not sure which Christians would agree with you on this..... :confused2: I would assume only very liberal christians who see the Bible as irrelevant and wholly inaccurate would agree with your interpretation of the Gospels.
Druijf wrote:Second, the details must be accounted for. You can't do gospel research well if you don't have eye for details.
Would't details be accounted for by eye-witness authorship?
Druijf wrote:Third, the "eye-witness account"-theory maybe your default position and that of your church community, this is not so for everybody, scholars specialized in gospel research generally don't perceive them as such.
I disagree, I realize Ehrman might not think so but there are scholars specialized in Gospel research that not only accept Eye-witness authorship, but also the resurrection. First would be Richard Bauckman, then we have people like Craig Evans, William Lane Craig and my old teacher Felix Just and Jeffrey Siker.
Druijf wrote:Fourth, if you want to maintain that "the possibility of original translation and copying errors is likely" is helpful in this case, you must argue where, why and how. John's portrayal of Jesus dying during Passover seems intentional, since he has John the Baptist calling Jesus `the Lamb of God' and John 19:36 refers to Exodus 12:46.
A possible likelyhood is that John and Mark drew from different calendars.
WinePusher wrote:I'll first point out that all the Gospels have this recorded. And yes, you are right in saying that it is possible that Jesus did this twice. Also, John does not write in a way that chronciles Jesus' ministry event by event. John 13:1 says points out that the Passover was near, so that event probably happened at the end of Jesus' ministry.
Druijf wrote:Please point out why John does not have to be read chronologically,
John's primary purpose was to emphasize the divinity of Jesus Christ. His Gospel makes use of "signs" rather then miracles, and contains alot of John's personal commentary, such as John 1:1-18. If you read his Gospel, it clearly doesn't chronicle Jesus' life in a biographical fashion.

WinePusher

Post #105

Post by WinePusher »

Adamoriens wrote:Which assertion? After perusing my posts carefully I could find no such claim. I did claim that literal inaccuracy is possible. Since Lewis considers possibilities (liar, lunatic, or Lord) and excludes this one, the Trilemma seems to me fallacious.
For what reasons do you reject the literary accuracy of the New Testament?
WinePusher wrote:-There is no reason to think that the Apostles did not know Greek
-Greek was a dominant language during the Roman Empire, it is regarded as modern day english, a universal language that tied the empire together
-Greek Scribes could have supplemented parts of the Gospels that seem to be above and beyond Rudimentary Greek through oral dictation.
Adamoriens wrote:I think we're at an impasse here. Perhaps we could go through and discuss each gospel in detail? If you agree, we could start with the earliest, Mark.


I think this thread is a good place to talk about these issues. If you want to discuss the Gospels and their historical accuracy in detail then I'll try devoting more time to this thread.
Adamoriens wrote:I think it would be more fruitful to discuss any given gospel more closely. There are excellent reasons to think the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness or is not historically accurate.
Ok, present your reasons and I'll try to address them. I have already presented my reasons as to why John is appropriately considered to be both an eye-witness account and historically reliable.
WinePusher wrote:The "myth" position is extremely fringe and out of mainstream biblical scholarship. If you to regard the Gospel narratives as myth you would subsequently have to regard the Early Church persecutions and the extra-biblical references as myth.
Adamoriens wrote:I am not endorsing the full or partial "mythicist" position, although I think it is often misunderstood and caricatured.
The myth position, as I know it, is that the Gospels are concocted accounts that made up an imaginary figure called Jesus Christ. That clearly isn't the case, so those who take this position try to moderate themselevs by saying that only some parts are myth. Well, which parts would be considered myth then?
Adamoriens wrote:You seem to be making quite a few appeals to authority for someone who himself endorses a fringe position; namely, that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I think I could name all the mainstream scholars who endorse this position on one hand.
Well, I just responded to Druijf who posed the same objection. There are scholars who specialize in the Gospels who believe that they are Eye-Witness Accounts.
Adamoriens wrote:What you have not done is responded to my question about the mass resurrection in Matthew. Does it appear to be legendary passage/fragment or not?
I would call this figurative language rather then myth. Yes, I do not think it actually, literally occured in the real world. But it does make sense when placed in the context of Jesus' death, who supposdley descended into hell after his death and liberated the souls down there.
Adamoriens wrote:I've considered this, but still do not however consider this hypocritical. No-one asks us to believe that Alexander really unraveled the Gordian knot or that he was born of a virgin. Christians make the claim that Jesus indeed turned water to wine or walked on the surface of a lake, and that he on several occasions revived dead bodies and that he was resurrected himself. Not only do Christians believe this, they often claim this is the only rational response to the evidence. I believe I am fully justified in lifting the bar. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Either the events happened or they didn't happen, there really is not room for moderation in this situation. The fact that they seem to be "extraordinary" events does not they require any more or less evidence then any other historical event would. If we compare the resurrection to another historical event that is accepted, and it has an equal amount or more evidence to support it's historicity, then there it should be taken literally.
Adamoriens wrote:If we took an even-handed approach and simply lay the Gospels alongside all other ancient historical sources (as I think we should) I think you'll find that the outcome would be very different from the one you desire.
Yes, they would have been written in a shorter amount of time to the events and the possibility of eye-witness authorship would not ruled out. But you can pick another historical source or event to compare the Gospels with and I'll debate it with you here.
Adamoriens wrote:Since you favor the Gospel of John, perhaps we could start a new thread under the title of "Is the Gospel of John an Eyewitness Account?" Maybe with something about historical reliability as the sub-heading, since that's really the heart of the matter. If you would rather I do the honours, PM me or respond here and I'll come up with sort of case against your proposition.
I think this thread is fine, lay outyour case and I'll respond to it here.

Druijf
Student
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:25 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post #106

Post by Druijf »

WinePusher wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by verbal agreement? If you mean similar sentence and gramatical structure, I don't see how this is a problem.

If your interested in the Synoptic Problem and why the large majority of scholars think the two document hypothesis is the best way to account for this, I would advise you to read Kloppenborg's Excavating Q, or his work intended for the general reader Q: the Earliest Gospel.

I disagree, I realize Ehrman might not think so but there are scholars specialized in Gospel research that not only accept Eye-witness authorship, but also the resurrection. First would be Richard Bauckman, then we have people like Craig Evans, William Lane Craig and my old teacher Felix Just and Jeffrey Siker.

I think it is very unlikely that Ehrman, given his background, does not know that there are person like the ones you mention here. I said `scholars in general', not `there is no scholar who'. The scholars you mention are not representatives of mainstream biblical scholarship.

Post Reply