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?

[Adamoriens]

This seems to be getting fairly acerbic. Are we discussing EduChris or the content of Jesus Interrupted?

We are addressing Eduhris and his attitude towards the author and comment as he stretches the landscape.
I am pointing out the nature of his comments.

Just trying to keep the focus on the discussion at hand, not the character of the participants. Perhaps it's presumptuous of me.

[WinePusher]

Seems strange that someone who does not believe in biblical inerrancy (of any sort) would take an agnostic-atheist positions concerning God, doesn't it? How's it reasonable to suggest that because the Bible is full of discrepencies, therefore God probably doesn't exist?

Straw-man. I never claimed that a flawed sacred text proves the nonexistence of a given deity, and from what I've read of Ehrman, neither does he. Give me a page number and I may retract that statement.

I never said you claimed that. I was addressing the idea that biblical scholarship leads to an erosion of faith, which was the topic of a different thread.

Ehrman claims that the critical student of the Bible will first discover errors and then, as a consequence, lose faith in the Bible's inerrancy (and perhaps in Christianity altogether).

Like I said, I don't accept this opinon.

You argue that Ehrman approached the material already convinced of its error (ie. preconceived conclusions) despite his numerous claims to the contrary. So far it just looks like slander.

Not quite, I claim that he distorts these errors to mean things they aren't. Like I said earlier, there are many atheists who appeal to evolution as a means to refute Christian Theism. And I think that Ehrman is one of those who uses minor biblical errors to refute Christian Theism.

I've heard from several other scholars, such as Daniel Smith Christopher and WLC that Ehrman grew up in a marganlized home and community. He also writes in great detail about the problem of evil, I think that those factors lead to his disbelief rather then his concern with the errors of the Bible. So the claim that rigorious biblical scholarship leads to disbelief simply doesn't cut it for me.

Have you read the book? Read pg. 275 and come back with arguments that can actually be attributed to him.

Now here's a strawman. I never did attribute the above statement to Ehrman, I'm simply saying that while biblical discrepencies may have played some part in his conversion from christianity to agnosticism, it did not play as huge a role as many claim.

Yes, The Virgin Birth Does Qualify.

Why does it not appear in Mark? Does this mean the Gospels have a major discrepancy?

It means that Mark decided to omitt that story from his Gospel because he found it unimportant to the audience he was appealing to. Matthew and Luke contain infancy narratives while Mark and John do not, this would only be a discrepency if they were meant to be documents that completely mirror oone another. However, they weren't, each Gospel is addressed to a different group of people, shows Jesus in a different light and had different intended purposes. Taking all of that into account, the fact that Mark omits a virgin birth narrative does not mean that it didn't occur, nor does it mean that its a discrepency amoung the Gospels.

For example, there are different accounts of the resurrection and crucifixion. One gospels says Jesus died at this time, another said he died at this time. That's a minor discrepency. However, the Gospel tend to agree on the location of the crucifixion, and the Gospels agree on the characters involve in the Trial of Jesus. Very minor inconsistencies such as this don't alter the narrative, but people like Ehrman blow them out of proportion to make it seem so.

Discrepancies in the time and place of death? Minor?

Absolutly. I've been to a number of funerals, and I could recount to you who the person that died was, and the rough dates, but I probably could't tell you the exact time.

Does this help establish the reliability of the alleged "eyewitness testimony?"

Eyewitness testimony does not mean that the author stood by jesus every moment of his life with a pen and paper in hand, it means that the author lived during he same time as Jesus. And it says nothing about eyewitness testimony.

[WinePusher]

Chapter 3: A Mass Of Varient Views

In this chapter, Bart Ehrman addresses the many differences between the New Testament Books.

Differences In The Synoptic Gospels
-Differences In Content
-Differences In Jesus' Teachings
-Differences In Emphasis

Differences Between Paul and the Gospel Writers
-Paul and James differ on Justification
-Paul and Matthew differ on Salvation and the Law

Questions For Debate:

1) What do you think about the differences in the Synoptic Gospels?
2) Can these alleged differences be considered flaws/errors and do they say anything about the Bible?

*Druijh, feel free to add more questions, I had a tough time thinking of some for this chapter.

[Druijf]

1) What do you think about the differences in the Synoptic Gospels?

First, I agree with Ehrman that ``that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say, since in many instances what one author has to say on a subject is not what another says.'' (Ehrman, JI, p. 99) and that harmonizing is not only incredible but also wrong methodologically.
The New Testament gives us different books from different authors with different theological viewpoints. The New Testament is a product of the early Christian movement, and this movement was diverse.

2) Can these alleged differences be considered flaws/errors and do they say anything about the Bible?

These can be considered "flaws/errors" if your view on the Bible is that the Bible should be an inerrant and 100% historically accurate book as a divine product. There are a lot of christians who agree that the bible should be regarded as a human response to God and not God´s view on God.

I agree that pointing at (minor) discrepancies does not directly disprove the idea that the gospel are based on eyewitness testimonies. Whoever, I don´t see enough positive reasons to regard them as such (maybe we can to a book debate on the book of Bauckham in the future). What these descrepancies Ehrman addresses in chapter 3 do show is that traditions about Jesus were altered for theological reasons.

[Cathar1950]

Chapter 3: A Mass Of Varient Views

In this chapter, Bart Ehrman addresses the many differences between the New Testament Books.

Differences In The Synoptic Gospels
-Differences In Content
-Differences In Jesus' Teachings
-Differences In Emphasis

Differences Between Paul and the Gospel Writers
-Paul and James differ on Justification
-Paul and Matthew differ on Salvation and the Law

Questions For Debate:

1) What do you think about the differences in the Synoptic Gospels?
2) Can these alleged differences be considered flaws/errors and do they say anything about the Bible?

*Druijh, feel free to add more questions, I had a tough time thinking of some for this chapter.

I can’t help but see more of the same Biblical apologetics straw man here as I saw in the OP:

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?

The straw man is a false delema or choice asking us to choice between being “historically, reliable� documents or “simply wrong and a result of ignorance�.

Here we are being presented another straw man and false choice.

2) Can these alleged differences be considered flaws/errors and do they say anything about the Bible?

It is those that insist the writings are without “flaws/errors�, that can’t be wrong or “historically, reliable� documents that have created the straw man with their claims.

These are not ideas that even the writers would have and Mathew or Luke were not saying the same thing as Mark and were meant to replace Mark, and like John where not meant to add another witness(devotional accounts, not eyewitness accounts) or account but to replace.

[WinePusher]

First, I agree with Ehrman that ``that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say, since in many instances what one author has to say on a subject is not what another says.'' (Ehrman, JI, p. 99) and that harmonizing is not only incredible but also wrong methodologically.
The New Testament gives us different books from different authors with different theological viewpoints. The New Testament is a product of the early Christian movement, and this movement was diverse.

Very good, the first complete agreement in this thread.

These can be considered "flaws/errors" if your view on the Bible is that the Bible should be an inerrant and 100% historically accurate book as a divine product. There are a lot of christians who agree that the bible should be regarded as a human response to God and not God´s view on God.

I also think that it is incredibly wrong to intrepret the Bible completely literal. I think that it is good for Christians to recognize the historical discrepencies in this book, but I do not think that it is fair for secular scholars to use these to disprove the biblical as valid.

[Cathar1950]

First, I agree with Ehrman that ``that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say, since in many instances what one author has to say on a subject is not what another says.'' (Ehrman, JI, p. 99) and that harmonizing is not only incredible but also wrong methodologically.
The New Testament gives us different books from different authors with different theological viewpoints. The New Testament is a product of the early Christian movement, and this movement was diverse.

Very good, the first complete agreement in this thread.

These can be considered "flaws/errors" if your view on the Bible is that the Bible should be an inerrant and 100% historically accurate book as a divine product. There are a lot of christians who agree that the bible should be regarded as a human response to God and not God´s view on God.

I also think that it is incredibly wrong to intrepret the Bible completely literal. I think that it is good for Christians to recognize the historical discrepencies in this book, but I do not think that it is fair for secular scholars to use these to disprove the biblical as valid.

He wasn't giving an argument; he was giving a summery and agreeing.
I think the idea that somehow "secular scholars" are trying "to use these to disprove the biblical as valid" is a straw man.

How is the bible valid except for teaching, indoctrination and the like?
Tales of Baal are valid for Baal worshipers.
It isn't just secular scholars as there are many non-secular and non-liberal scholars that understand these writings as product of diverse communities and not historical eyewitness accounts of any sort or fashion.
Do you think it is fair to use the Bible to disprove what secular scholars find valid?

[WinePusher]

I think the idea that somehow "secular scholars" are trying "to use these to disprove the biblical as valid" is a straw man.

It may not be directly germane to the topic, but it does bear some relevance. Although Ehrman is not an atheist, I would categorize him with "New Atheist Movement" with the goal of limited the reaches of religion, particularly Christianity.

How is the bible valid except for teaching, indoctrination and the like?

I consider it historically valid, with minor discrepencies here and there. And if the Bible is historically valild, then of course the events listed in the book actually happened. So the problem for these non-biblicist is that they seem to accept other ancient texts and stories of ancient events, yet they reject the Bible, and there is certainly more evidence for the Bible then most other ancient texts.

1) Source material. We generally have 1-5 source documents for ancient authors such as Catullus, Lucretius, Tacitus and Horace. When it comes to the scriptures, we have a wide range of sources spanning from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.

2) There is extra-biblical evidence to support biblical claims, that is a key factor. We have independent archaeological evidence confirming major parts of the Old Testament, such as Sennacherib's Prisim and The Black Obelisk. We also have non-biased historians attesting to the veracity of the New Testament.

In light of all this, I don't think it is honest to say the Bible is just a fancifal book of myths and legends that is banrupt in the area of objective evidence.

Tales of Baal are valid for Baal worshipers.

However, that would be based on faith alone. Christianity is not based on faith alone, there is evidence and events that can prove the truth of Christian claims. As William Lane Craig and Paul said, Christianity would be falsifiable if Jesus Christ did not resurrect. And if Jesus did resurrect, then Christianity is true. I'm not sure if the same methodology exists in Baal religions.

It isn't just secular scholars as there are many non-secular and non-liberal scholars that understand these writings as product of diverse communities and not historical eyewitness accounts of any sort or fashion.

Not all of them are historical-eyewitness accounts. But the Gospels were, but we'll get into this more indepth in the next chapter. I'll probably post it up tomorrow and you can do the debate questions if you like.

Do you think it is fair to use the Bible to disprove what secular scholars find valid?

No, I'd rather use secular evidence to disprove the claims of secular scholars.

[Druijf]

I hope we can stick to the contents of the book and address related subjects in a different topic (a more indebt discussion about the "double standard" could be interesting I think).

Why you (WinePusher) continue to see Ehrman as an attacker of Christianity while he expressly states that that is not his intention is a mystery to me. That evangelical beliefs about the Bible are at odds on many points with mainstream biblical scholarship does not make him a New Atheist. I also hope we can drop the issue of the person and intentions of Ehrman and rather focus on what he has to say.

[Adamoriens]

I never said you claimed that. I was addressing the idea that biblical scholarship leads to an erosion of faith, which was the topic of a different thread.

Insofar as biblical scholarship shows that the Bible is inerrant, then biblical scholarship seems to erode certain doctrines. I guess it depends on your definition of "faith."

Ehrman claims that the critical student of the Bible will first discover errors and then, as a consequence, lose faith in the Bible's inerrancy (and perhaps in Christianity altogether).

Like I said, I don't accept this opinon.

Why? I've read hundreds of anecdotes where Christians began to doubt and ultimately rejected Christianity because of mistakes in the Bible. Is that irrational? Offer us more than your opinion.

You argue that Ehrman approached the material already convinced of its error (ie. preconceived conclusions) despite his numerous claims to the contrary. So far it just looks like slander.

Not quite, I claim that he distorts these errors to mean things they aren't. Like I said earlier, there are many atheists who appeal to evolution as a means to refute Christian Theism. And I think that Ehrman is one of those who uses minor biblical errors to refute Christian Theism.

The scientific narrative of creation is very different from the biblical one, and disturbs some central tenets (such as the Fall and original sin, etc.) so I'm not sure what your point was, but this is the a different debate. Is Ehrman one of those who use minor biblical errors to refute Christian theism? He explicitly states in Chapter 8 that biblical error only refutes fundamentalist forms of Christianity, so your claim seems a bit shrill.

Have you read the book? Read pg. 275 and come back with arguments that can actually be attributed to him.

Now here's a strawman. I never did attribute the above statement to Ehrman, I'm simply saying that while biblical discrepencies may have played some part in his conversion from christianity to agnosticism, it did not play as huge a role as many claim.

Fair enough.

Why does it not appear in Mark? Does this mean the Gospels have a major discrepancy?

It means that Mark decided to omitt that story from his Gospel because he found it unimportant to the audience he was appealing to. Matthew and Luke contain infancy narratives while Mark and John do not, this would only be a discrepency if they were meant to be documents that completely mirror oone another. However, they weren't, each Gospel is addressed to a different group of people, shows Jesus in a different light and had different intended purposes. Taking all of that into account, the fact that Mark omits a virgin birth narrative does not mean that it didn't occur, nor does it mean that its a discrepency amoung the Gospels.

Could you provide evidence for what you think were Mark's intentions? Otherwise this is just apologetic conjecture.

For example, there are different accounts of the resurrection and crucifixion. One gospels says Jesus died at this time, another said he died at this time. That's a minor discrepency. However, the Gospel tend to agree on the location of the crucifixion, and the Gospels agree on the characters involve in the Trial of Jesus. Very minor inconsistencies such as this don't alter the narrative, but people like Ehrman blow them out of proportion to make it seem so.

As far as I can see, you're not much different than a biblical inerrantist; you've simply moved the goal posts. Ie. "Yes, there are discrepancies and errors, but they're all minor ones. They don't actually affect Christian doctrine in any way."

You say Ehrman blows errors out of proportion. Please provide evidence for this assertion (ie. page numbers, quotes, and a well-structured response).