Looking for responses to Bart Ehrman's work

[DivineOb]

Over the past year I have found that Bart Ehrman's debates and his lecture series "Historical Jesus" (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/cour...cal-jesus.html) to be absolutely fascinating and really resonated with me. Can anyone recommend notable threads on here / youtube videos / other resources which critique his work / conclusions? I'm looking for something taking as much of a secular perspective as possible since obviously what he says is trivial to defeat by presupposing that "the bible is accurate in all of its details" (or something along those lines).

I'm listening to "Historical Jesus" a second time so I can put this thread on hold and come back with some of the main points I'm interested in hearing responses to once I've done that.

Thanks

[Christian3]

Over the past year I have found that Bart Ehrman's debates and his lecture series "Historical Jesus" (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/cour...cal-jesus.html) to be absolutely fascinating and really resonated with me. Can anyone recommend notable threads on here / youtube videos / other resources which critique his work / conclusions? I'm looking for something taking as much of a secular perspective as possible since obviously what he says is trivial to defeat by presupposing that "the bible is accurate in all of its details" (or something along those lines).

I'm listening to "Historical Jesus" a second time so I can put this thread on hold and come back with some of the main points I'm interested in hearing responses to once I've done that.

Thanks

http://crossexamined.org

Book Forged:

http://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-...he-name-of-god

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...hink-they-are/

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...3&article=4253

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...e-in-mark-226/

Mark 2:26, what started it all:


Clip: My challenge to Christians who are intimidated by claims of errors in the Bible is to go do some research for yourself. There are answers to these challenges. Remember, virtually all the Bible difficulties that critics raise have been known for 2,000 years. None of them are new. Instead of throwing your faith away, do some digging. I only wish Ehrman had.

Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread? (category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context) Jesus states that the event happened in the days of Abiathar the high priestand yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech. If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, When king David was a shepherdboy..., it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event certainly did happen in the days of Abiathar, as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his fathers whole family and their town was destroyed by Sauls men. Therefore, Jesus statement is quite acceptable. (Archer 1994:362)


Book Misquoting Jesus:

http://www.cbn.com/special/apologeti...rt_ehrman.aspxhttps://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

Book Jesus Interrupted:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...alysis-of.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_08.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_13.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...part-four.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_16.html

[DivineOb]

Thank you for this. I will admit taken in isolation the textual variants *might* not "prove" that the core tenets of Christianity were not retained (though I believe there *are* clear instances which are more significant). Let finish going through the lectures again and then post more specific questions.

[Rushing Jaws]

[Juvenal]

Thank you for this. I will admit taken in isolation the textual variants *might* not "prove" that the core tenets of Christianity were not retained (though I believe there *are* clear instances which are more significant). Let finish going through the lectures again and then post more specific questions.

These folks are conflicted on Ehrman. He doesn't believe in their God, or their version of Jesus, so they feel a need to attack him, but when they address his claims, it turns out he's not saying anything controversial. It's all mainline scholarship.

[One Bad Pig]

These folks are conflicted on Ehrman. He doesn't believe in their God, or their version of Jesus, so they feel a need to attack him, but when they address his claims, it turns out he's not saying anything controversial. It's all mainline scholarship.

I am not in the least bit conflicted on Ehrman. When he writes for scholarly audiences in his area of specialty, he is relatively mainstream. When he writes for popular audiences or in areas outside of his specialty, he has a charming tendency to make implications not well borne out by his scholarship. When he attempts to explain (away) the Resurrection of Christ, he is not in the least bit "mainline"; there are a number of theories which attempt to explain how a resurrection myth arose, none of which command any sort of majority following, because none of them are remotely plausible. The majority scholarly position is that the resurrection happened (Gary Habermas has done extensive research documenting that).

Your cheap attempt at psychoanalysis is amusing, but predicable. Jerk.

[One Bad Pig]

Thank you for this. I will admit taken in isolation the textual variants *might* not "prove" that the core tenets of Christianity were not retained (though I believe there *are* clear instances which are more significant). Let finish going through the lectures again and then post more specific questions.

Which came first, the gospels or the church?

[Juvenal]

Quotes by Bart Ehrman

Apologists, especially inerrantists, often feel a need to inflate the opposition into something they can attack. Even these dated citations debunk claims that Ehrman's positions are anything other than mainstream.

self-published book did the same, and couldn't understand why folks would rather read it from someone who could actually write.

Not that "Jesus didn't exist" isn't all too common. I've had students ask me about it. I've responded with Bart's references to encounters with Peter and James by Paul. Not that it needs it, but I've cited Ehrman's promotion to add further heft to the fact this isn't a Christian apologetic. There's nothing miraculous about a baby being born in first century Palestine. It was pretty common back then.

He's since gone further than that, changing his mind on whether the synoptics also see Jesus as divine. He'd previously restricted that view to John. The critical factor was an analysis of how adoption was viewed in the first century and how that related to descriptions of Jesus as God's son.

There is never a good excuse to cite Lee Strobel in a serious discussion on apologetics. There's less excuse to caricaturize a prominent scholar like Metzger by turning his thoughtful expositions into the spit-bejeweled shouts of a hair-shirted maniac. All caps quotation of Metzger is tantamount to libel.

In fairness, I'm going to assume that presentation was not original.

Ehrman would be the first to say Metzger doesn't deserve that all caps treatment.

http://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-...he-name-of-god

FYI, that's Mike Licona, ApologiaNick's father-in-law, writing in March 2011 shortly before he was expelled from Southern Evangelical Seminary by the late lamented Norman Geisler.

In a series of open letters posted online, Norman Geisler, distinguished professor of apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California, objected to Licona's characterizing the passage as a "strange little text." Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of Scripture. He also called for Licona to recant his interpretation, labeling it "unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism."

Geisler had issues

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...hink-they-are/

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...3&article=4253

I'm not seeing anything here post 2012. A decade is a long time between revisions. Start updating your files by clicking on links and seeing which ones are dead.

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...e-in-mark-226/

This guy is a preacher with a blog and no studies of his own on the topic, so he does a quick spin on google to dig up an apologetic from Norman Geisler *ahem* he's well aware could have been gleaned from Ehrman himself.

The point being that there's no need for these complicated arguments when simpler arguments suffice.

The point being that that's okay. It's okay for mistakes to show up in any text, so long as the gist isn't lost. Ehrman's issues arose specifically because he'd been raised and schooled in a tradition that identified their faith with an inerrantist position that no survey has ever shown to be the majority position in Christianity, even where that position is most heavily represented.

It's just not.

http://www.cbn.com/special/apologeti...rt_ehrman.aspx

Koukl is a prime example of ...

Apologists, especially inerrantists, [who] feel a need to inflate the opposition into something they can attack.

This is how he begins.

... Bart Ehrman fires a shot meant to sink the ship of any Christian who thinks the New Testament documents can be trusted.

That's what I'm talking about. It feeds on the Christian persecution mythos.

A lesser man might suggest it's done for financial gain, but I think that's rare. These folks sincerely believe what they're writing about, even when, unlike the STR folks, they insist Christianity stands or falls based on whether Noah ran a wet navy like a proper Brit or waited until landfall to get properly soused.

Astoundingly, there's an entire ecosystem within Christianity dedicated to the thesis that the universe was created in six literal days a few thousand years ago.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...alysis-of.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_08.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_13.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...part-four.html
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_16.html

Ben is insecure.jpg

It's 2020. Witherington is a "serious" apologist. There's no excuse for his blog missing an https.

*sigh*

Either "populous" or populus.

At least it's not in all caps.

And they are.

Let me start then with a general criticism about Ben's entire approach.

If you're going to argue that Ehrman has supported something that's not mainstream, you should show an alternative that holds greater sway. We understand that not all positions are set in stone, that for some there is no clear majority.

Proffering an alternative that's not as widely held isn't helpful.

Pardon the bemoan.

[Juvenal]

I am not in the least bit conflicted on Ehrman.

Awesome!

So how's the wife and kids?

I just finished the semester and by just finished I mean ... just that.

Friday 4:20 p.m., via email: Hey Jesse,

Just need to know if you have submitted your final grades. If not, can you let me know when you think you will have them in?

Friday, 4:32 p.m., via text: Hey Jesse. Just need confirmation if final grades are in.

Friday, 4:56 p.m., via email: Dear Niki,

Just finished grading my Thursday afternoon finals an hour ago. Sorry that put you in suspense! Grades were in before 5 p.m., with oodles of minutes to spare.

Friday, 4:59 p.m., via email: LOL!! Ooddles and oddles! Not!

After one of these interactions last term, Niki voiced a concern that I had a problem with procrastination, which is totally untrue. I'm good at it. I emailed everyone their graded exams first because I knew I had the time. We've got a month now for Summer because they moved the break from right after Spring to just before Fall, so I'm planning on getting some work done on the Everglades property and putting a lot more thought into Remote Learning.

No question this last month has been rough. Had to throw away all the prep from before we went online and the new prep had to be continuously reworked because of technical faults interfering with the presentation, mostly chopped audio. There's been a lot of 18-hour days and a few all-nighters, still, end-of-term is always the worst. There was still admin work even after the grades went in, and by then it was, well, hello Saturday. I haven't actually slept since hmm, Wednesday night I guess.

But whoa, what a load off.

Never a third grader in history has greeted a summer break with such elan.

When he writes for scholarly audiences in his area of specialty, he is relatively mainstream. When he writes for popular audiences or in areas outside of his specialty, he has a charming tendency to make implications not well borne out by his scholarship. When he attempts to explain (away) the Resurrection of Christ, he is not in the least bit "mainline"; there are a number of theories which attempt to explain how a resurrection myth arose, none of which command any sort of majority following, because none of them are remotely plausible. The majority scholarly position is that the resurrection happened (Gary Habermas has done extensive research documenting that).

Implications, inferences, what's in a word.

Apologists, especially inerrantists, often feel a need to inflate the opposition into something they can attack.

Habermas' math is hack. I mean, much worse than William Lane Craig, and that's pretty bad. To read his minimal facts approach to the Resurrection is to ask who would ever hire him. It's that embarrassing.

2020-05-02_14-58-19.jpg

Oh, yeah, forgot about them. You're in the neighborhood. Have you seen their museum?

flood dinosaurs.jpg

Some of those fossils are thousands of years old.

Full credit for pursuing a real PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies, for the College of Arts and Letters of a real university. But you have to look askance at his decision to style that as a degree in history. Much like Richard Carrier calling himself a New Testament scholar after researching "Attitudes toward the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire (100 B.C. to 313 A.D.)."

That's not how this works.

Your cheap attempt at psychoanalysis is amusing, but predicable. Jerk.

If I can bring even one smile to one piglet's eye, my day has been worthwhile.

[Seeker]

The majority scholarly position is that the resurrection happened (Gary Habermas has done extensive research documenting that).

The ''majority scholarly opinion'' among Christians scholars, correct? If so, what's the relevance?

[Terraceth]

In case you are wondering why this reply is so much later than the post being responded to, I actually meant to post the following message a while ago when the timing was more relevant, but for whatever reason wanted to wait and saved it to a file on my computer, then forgot about it. Then when clearing stuff out I discovered it, and figured I might as well get it out there.

There is never a good excuse to cite Lee Strobel in a serious discussion on apologetics.

He's not citing Lee Strobel... he's citing Bruce Metzger being quoted by Lee Strobel. Granted, I think a direct quote from Metzger would be preferable, but let's not mix things up here.

There's less excuse to caricaturize a prominent scholar like Metzger by turning his thoughtful expositions into the spit-bejeweled shouts of a hair-shirted maniac. All caps quotation of Metzger is tantamount to libel.

In fairness, I'm going to assume that presentation was not original.

The capitalization was obviously done for emphasis, not to try to make Metzger "shout." It is, admittedly, a rather crude way to demonstrate emphasis, as bolding is far better, as it gets the point across without making it harder to read. Still, the point was for emphasis, not "shouting."

FYI, that's Mike Licona, ApologiaNick's father-in-law, writing in March 2011 shortly before he was expelled from Southern Evangelical Seminary by the late lamented Norman Geisler.

In a series of open letters posted online, Norman Geisler, distinguished professor of apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California, objected to Licona's characterizing the passage as a "strange little text." Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of Scripture. He also called for Licona to recant his interpretation, labeling it "unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism."

Geisler had issues

Well, he had a debate with Ehrman in 2018, a panel discussion involving him in 2019 and made at least one video about Ehrman recently, so if anyone is curious they can check those out. I don't personally have enough interest to watch 30-, 60-, and 150-minute videos to find out myself, though.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44309[/ATTACH]

It's 2020. Witherington is a "serious" apologist. There's no excuse for his blog missing an https.

His last blog post there is from 2009 and all of his later blog posts are over here. I don't think "he hasn't used the blog you're talking about since 2009" is an unreasonable excuse for it missing an https.

*sigh*

Either "populous" or populus.

At least it's not in all caps.

Why are you so upset about a typo?

And they are.

Let me start then with a general criticism about Ben's entire approach.

If you're going to argue that Ehrman has supported something that's not mainstream, you should show an alternative that holds greater sway. We understand that not all positions are set in stone, that for some there is no clear majority.

Proffering an alternative that's not as widely held isn't helpful.

Where does he say Ehrman has represented something not mainstream? Witherington never even uses the word mainstream. His criticism is of Ehrman saying his views are that of the majority when they are not, explaining:

"

So I am not sure how Witherington's "entire approach" is to argue that Ehrman has argued something that isn't mainstream when he never uses that claim. His "entire approach" is to go through Ehrman's arguments and explain why he disagrees with them; you may or may not agree with Witherington's criticisms but they certainly don't rest on the question of whether Ehrman's arguments are mainstream or not.

[NorrinRadd]

FWIW, here is a 1-hour panel discussion among Ehrman, Keener, Licona, and Rob Bowman:

Description by Keener:

"Admittedly I write better than I speak, especially extemporaneously, but this was an engaging exchange of ideas regarding differences in the Gospels, in this one-hour discussion. Some of us regard the differences as less significant historically than what we have in many fairly comparable ancient works; Bart regards many of them as problematic errors. We all had a friendly, civil exchange, however. It should be noted that each of us also did separate plenary presentations, so some of us had already offered positive arguments for the overall reliability of the Gospels, but at this point we were focusing on the more conspicuous differences among them."

From here.

[Juvenal]

In case you are wondering why this reply is so much later than the post being responded to, I actually meant to post the following message a while ago when the timing was more relevant, but for whatever reason wanted to wait and saved it to a file on my computer, then forgot about it. Then when clearing stuff out I discovered it, and figured I might as well get it out there.

I'm happy to see any content responding to theological issues on TWeb, let alone content responding to my own contributions. No need for apologies.

He's not citing Lee Strobel... he's citing Bruce Metzger being quoted by Lee Strobel. Granted, I think a direct quote from Metzger would be preferable, but let's not mix things up here.

Woman Who Ruined Fresco Of Jesus Now Wants To Be Paid.

The capitalization was obviously done for emphasis, not to try to make Metzger "shout." It is, admittedly, a rather crude way to demonstrate emphasis, as bolding is far better, as it gets the point across without making it harder to read. Still, the point was for emphasis, not "shouting."

All caps is shouting on the internet.

Please don't argue that point. This is well established netiquette. Nor would I agree that anything Metzger says requires emphasis. To the contrary, to suggest that he requires emphasis is to disparage the authority he justly earned through his work. It's as inappropriate as Witherington caricaturizing Ehrman's work as "bemoaning" the ignorance of his readership.

Well, he had a debate with Ehrman in 2018, a panel discussion involving him in 2019 and made at least one video about Ehrman recently, so if anyone is curious they can check those out. I don't personally have enough interest to watch 30-, 60-, and 150-minute videos to find out myself, though.

By coincidence, just yesterday, immediately before seeing your post, the YouTube algorithm queued up the 2018 debate. Licona fans might be interested in seeing Ehrman address the exact issue that saw Mike removed from SES at 48:00 ff. I think it's fair to say that Bart and Mike are in agreement on that episode, and that Mike is now free to welcome that agreement post-Geisler.

Licona speaks very fondly of Ehrman in the last video interview, and it's apparently reciprocated, as Licona congratulates both the audience at the Defenders conference and the warm reception he himself received from commenters on his invited contributions at Ehrman's blog.

His last blog post there is from 2009 and all of his later blog posts are over here. I don't think "he hasn't used the blog you're talking about since 2009" is an unreasonable excuse for it missing an https.

Why are you so upset about a typo?

First, thanks for the link to his current blog.

Please note the context of my criticism. I can only click on so many dead links in a poster's response without losing my equanimity, noting the response I was trying to engage with had been phoned in.

Where does he say Ehrman has represented something not mainstream? Witherington never even uses the word mainstream. His criticism is of Ehrman saying his views are that of the majority when they are not, explaining:

You're suggesting the views of the majority are not the mainstream views. I disagree.

"

So I am not sure how Witherington's "entire approach" is to argue that Ehrman has argued something that isn't mainstream when he never uses that claim. His "entire approach" is to go through Ehrman's arguments and explain why he disagrees with them; you may or may not agree with Witherington's criticisms but they certainly don't rest on the question of whether Ehrman's arguments are mainstream or not.

The quote you've chosen includes no specifics that can be argued. "This or that NT matter" is a hand wave, not worthy of response. If you'd like to discuss a particular position held by Ehrman which you personally believe is not mainstream, based on your own opinions or whatever sources you can find, I'd be happy to engage.

[Juvenal]

From here.

Please note that's the same video from the Defenders Conference 2019 linked above by Terraceth, from Licona's YouTube channel.

[NorrinRadd]

Sorry. I didn't follow the link. I did do a quick thread search to see if Keener had been mentioned.