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?

[EduChris]

...Knives cuts both ways...Hopefully you get my point and forgive my insult. We all think that by virtue of introspection we are more objective than those around us. We aren't.

Actually, you and Cathar have each confirmed the sole point I was trying to make--that point was, that since Ehrman inserts his "personal landscape" into his popular books, he therefore makes himself an issue in those books. This being the case, any critique him as a person need not constitute an ad hominem attack (though if he hadn't chosen to make himself an issue, then a gratuitous critique of his underlying motives might be construed as an ad hominem).

Obviously, personal landscape stories can be stretched in multiple ways. Since Ehrman has inserted his landscape into his writings, his apologists have no basis for crying "ad hominem" whenever someone stretches that landscape in a direction that is not flattering to Ehrman.

[Druijf]

The problem is not so much with the methodology as with the abuse of the methodology and the unwarranted conclusions that result from this abuse.

It is not clear to me what you mean by this. Could you quote a number of instances in Jesus Interrupted where you think this is the case?

[Adamoriens]

The trouble I have with Ehrman, and other scholars of his type, is that they exploit thoughtful inquiry to support their preconcieved conclusions about Jesus and God. They are similar to Evolutionists and Darwainists, who take a perfectly fine scientific theory and use it to to refute creationism and Christianity. It's an abuse of history and science on their part.

Ehrman and other scholars of his "type" claim that thoughtful inquiry led them to conclusions you think were "preconceived." They're claiming aftconceived conclusions, in other words. Do you have evidence for your assertion it really is otherwise?

I would think that if the Gospels were completely harmonized, it would lead to greater doubt. While the synoptics were somewhat copied off one another, they provide different viewpoints and perspectives of Jesus' life and ministry. And notice that the discrepencies are only minor events, not major events.

If the Gospels were in complete harmony and yet firmly established as independent accounts, I think they would be much more compelling. As you say, of course, if it could be shown they were harmonized ie. part of a conspiracy, it would destroy their credibility. However, Ehrman argues that the discrepancies reveal more the theological inclinations than the eyewitness nature of the Gospels (but this is Ch.3 I think).

I think you should qualify "major" and "minor" events. Does the virgin birth qualify? Suppose one Gospel has many minor events that alter the sense of the narrative completely?

Actually, you and Cathar have each confirmed the sole point I was trying to make...since Ehrman has inserted his landscape into his writings, his apologists have no basis for crying "ad hominem" whenever someone stretches that landscape in a direction that is not flattering to Ehrman.

I never cried "ad hominem." In my reply I simply attempted to be consistent with your critique. Certainly regard everything Ehrman says with a robust skepticism, given the contentious subject matter and charged emotions/high stakes. But since you included a "personal landscape" in your argument against Ehrman's... uh... personal landscape, I think you should subject yourself to similar criticism.

Whatever. I'd also rather hear your thoughts on Ehrman's methodology (and abuse thereof).

[Cathar1950]

Actually, you and Cathar have each confirmed the sole point I was trying to make...since Ehrman has inserted his landscape into his writings, his apologists have no basis for crying "ad hominem" whenever someone stretches that landscape in a direction that is not flattering to Ehrman.

I never cried "ad hominem." In my reply I simply attempted to be consistent with your critique. Certainly regard everything Ehrman says with a robust skepticism, given the contentious subject matter and charged emotions/high stakes. But since you included a "personal landscape" in your argument against Ehrman's... uh... personal landscape, I think you should subject yourself to similar criticism.

Whatever. I'd also rather hear your thoughts on Ehrman's methodology (and abuse thereof).

I did after he made these remarks.

EduChris wrote:

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.

His posturing is hardly a defense or excuse.

I will use Craig and Wright as you have used them as some unexplained objection to Ehrman and because it seems to fit you as someone that doesn’t mind “stretching� the landscape.

Robert Price sums it up pretty nice as he describes Craig “populist tone of his writing�, and neo-evangelicals such as yourself.
“I believe the welcoming of views such as Craig’s and Wight’s attests a demographic shift that is easy to explain. The 1970’s resurgence of emotion-driven, revivalistic religion has resulted in the mushrooming of evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges. These institutions are able to employ large numbers of graduate school Bible professors – all trained, like Creationist Biology teachers, in the trappings of mainstream scholarship, though most of them only endured courses in criticism with gritted teeth long enough to get the requisite sheepskins. Thus was created, to a wider scholarly market for textbooks of a neo-conservative slant, eager to stultify the results of generations of the Higher Criticism of scripture…In short the reactionary backwater of one generation succeeded in becoming the mainstream of the next.

EduChris
Was it you that had a problem with some “liberal� class where you tried to prove Paul wrote Thessalonians? I can only wonder if you just pointed to someone’s book, someone that said Paul wrote it and dismissed all and anything that said differently.

EduChris wrote:

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.

EduChris wrote:

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.

Exactly, he was fine with being an evangelical just like you and he didn’t feel forced like you with indoctrination so you could become your own authority as some neo-evangelical. Yet it seems to have taken as you resisted “liberals�.
But I see no reason to project desires as he has already established himself as an objective seeker of truth where you have yet to even establish yourself as anything more then an apologist for neo-evangelical populist Christianity and some personal esoteric interpretations so you don’t feel “forced�.

EduChris wrote:

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."

I think he did a fine job and “trying� seems to really be stretching some boundaries as well as landscape.

EduChris wrote:

The reason why Ehrman's claims struck me
is that despite what he is trying to communicate,

What is it he didn’t communicate?

EduChris wrote:

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

.

Yes you are projecting. I see no desperation in his writings while I do see desperate attempts to discredit Ehrman before you even read the book, apparently hearsay from some ‘Liberal� professor was enough.
Is this use of a liberal professor some desperate way of getting us to “to pay attention to what� EduChris has to say�, because he is so obviously passionate about finding the truth, wherever it leads." Like you do here:
EduChris wrote:

I attended a conservative Christian school in which Christianity seemed "forced" on me.

I rejected Christianity even at great personal cost to myself.
I was more concerned about what was true than I was about what would get me affirmed by my peers or my professors.

EduChris wrote:

My own experience is completely different

.

It seems so but it seems the first seemly forced indoctrination took.

EduChris wrote:

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.

Unlike you he has already proven his “mettle�.


EduChris wrote:

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.

Really?
I guess all those scholars couldn't teach you nothing.

EduChris wrote:

So it seems to me that Ehrman is the type who wants affirmation;
that is why he bounced around from one view to another.

Again it sounds like you except you bounced back and he matured and moved on.

[Adamoriens]

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

[Cathar1950]

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.

[WinePusher]

Ehrman and other scholars of his "type" claim that thoughtful inquiry led them to conclusions you think were "preconceived." They're claiming aftconceived conclusions, in other words. Do you have evidence for your assertion it really is otherwise?

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?

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.

I would think that if the Gospels were completely harmonized, it would lead to greater doubt. While the synoptics were somewhat copied off one another, they provide different viewpoints and perspectives of Jesus' life and ministry. And notice that the discrepencies are only minor events, not major events.

If the Gospels were in complete harmony and yet firmly established as independent accounts, I think they would be much more compelling.

This request isn't realistic. There are historical errors found in nearly every single ancient document due to human error, but a few errors here and there doesn't show the text to be fraudulent or a hoax.

I think you should qualify "major" and "minor" events. Does the virgin birth qualify? Suppose one Gospel has many minor events that alter the sense of the narrative completely?

Yes, The Virgin Birth Does Qualify.

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.

[Cathar1950]

Ehrman and other scholars of his "type" claim that thoughtful inquiry led them to conclusions you think were "preconceived." They're claiming aftconceived conclusions, in other words. Do you have evidence for your assertion it really is otherwise?

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?

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.

I thought Erhman was very clear that it wasn’t the Historical-Critical methods that made his Agnostic position reasonable, and he also explained thee were others that remained faithful. I would think knowledge and understanding would change your concepts. I always find it odd that no matter what they end up learning in Sunday school or some other method of Biblical indoctrination they end up defending it against all other positions.
So it is a straw man argument to say that somehow “someone who does not believe in biblical inerrancy� will become an “agnostic-atheist� as Erhman points out an insight you seem to have missed.

I would like to know what you mean by “a marganlized home and community� and how being marginalized is relevant and not anything more then hearsay and back handed slander. He tells us the source of his problem with evil and his rigorous scholarship isn’t the source of his Agnostics position.

[Cathar1950]

If the Gospels were in complete harmony and yet firmly established as independent accounts, I think they would be much more compelling.

This request isn't realistic. There are historical errors found in nearly every single ancient document due to human error, but a few errors here and there doesn't show the text to be fraudulent or a hoax.

I think you should qualify "major" and "minor" events. Does the virgin birth qualify? Suppose one Gospel has many minor events that alter the sense of the narrative completely?

Yes, The Virgin Birth Does Qualify.

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.

How does Ehrman blow them out of proportion?
At least you are admitting there are "minor" discrepancies, "Very minor" inconsistencies dismissing them as being blown out of proportion and begging the question while you move the goal posts.
I would think it is more those that hold some inerrant view of the Bible that are blowing it out of proportion and if that wasn't enough you dismiss the discrepancies and inconsistencies as some mutant product of a marginalized family and community.
Those discrepancies and inconsistencies are the product of the unknown author's purposes and not as accounts of events. Either Jesus didn't eat the Passover meal with his disciples, wasn't crucified on the Day of preparation is John as the Lamb of God, or none of the above as they could very well be the product of their purposes.
Even some early church fathers thought Jesus was killed in 47 CE and some have shown reason he was killed 12 years before the suggested date and that Pilot was in Jerusalem 12 years earlier then thought.

I found Erhman, at least what I saw on TV, as personable, unassuming, intelligent and a good sense of humor. He wasn't out to get anyone.
I think he has done a great job of doing what he set out to do and that was to give the public what is being taught in universities and seminaries and the problems, discrepancies and inconsistencies as a NT scholar.
Being labeled as liberal or secular as well as attacks upon their character and credibility with hearsay and other nonsense, is simply a product of a 19th century reactionary response to the Historical-Critical methods that simply dismisses scholarship by believers and unbelievers alike that doesn't reinforce what ever esoteric view they might have of inerrant and scriptures and doctrine, dogma or interpretation they might have.

[Adamoriens]

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.

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). 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.

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.

This request isn't realistic. There are historical errors found in nearly every single ancient document due to human error, but a few errors here and there doesn't show the text to be fraudulent or a hoax.

For an inerrant text this is a reasonable request.

Yes, The Virgin Birth Does Qualify.

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

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