Bart Ehrman's Bad Arguments Go On Tour
Summary
TLDRIn this podcast, Kelly addresses New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's arguments, critiquing his stance on the historicity of Jesus's resurrection and divinity. Ehrman, once a conservative Christian, now an agnostic atheist, has been criticized for his views on biblical manuscripts and the physical laws. Kelly counters Ehrman's claims by highlighting the differences in evidence quality for Jesus compared to other ancient figures, the unique claims of Jesus in the synoptic gospels, and the impact of textual variants on Christian doctrine. The discussion aims to clarify misconceptions and affirm the reliability of the New Testament accounts.
Takeaways
- 📚 The host, Kelly, introduces the topic of discussing New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman's views, highlighting his transition from a Conservative Christian to an agnostic atheist.
- 🔍 Ehrman's focus on textual criticism is emphasized, which involves using biblical manuscripts to restore the original text of the Bible, given that no original copies exist.
- 🤔 The debate over Jesus's resurrection is presented, with Ehrman arguing against it based on the belief that it violates the laws of nature, while his critics argue that laws of physics and mathematics differ fundamentally.
- 📖 The difference in the quality of evidence for Jesus's resurrection versus other ancient figures like Apollonius of Tyana and Romulus is discussed, pointing out the more substantial and earlier evidence for Jesus.
- 😯 Ehrman's claim that the New Testament never describes Jesus claiming to be God is contested, with references to John 8:58 and the implications of Jesus using 'I am' in the context of his divinity.
- 📝 The argument from silence is critiqued, where Ehrman suggests that the lack of explicit claims to divinity in some gospels undermines the claim that Jesus saw himself as divine, but critics argue this is not convincing.
- 👤 The discussion of Jesus's ability to forgive sins and read thoughts as indicative of his divine nature, as opposed to Ehrman's view that these are anti-priestly polemics and not claims of divinity.
- 👉 Ehrman's view that Jesus saw himself as a mortal apocalyptic prophet is challenged, with the argument that the evidence suggests a divine self-identity, especially in the context of the trial narratives.
- 🌐 The issue of New Testament textual variants is addressed, with Ehrman's popular presentations potentially overstating the extent of the problem and the actual impact on Christian doctrine.
- 📉 The contrast between the number of variants and the actual reliability of the New Testament text is highlighted, showing that the vast majority of variants do not affect core Christian beliefs.
- 🔑 The final point is Ehrman's own concession that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants, which is a significant admission that nuances his public skepticism.
Q & A
Who is Bart Ehrman and what is his current religious identification?
-Bart Ehrman is a renowned New Testament scholar who was once a Conservative Christian but now identifies as an agnostic atheist.
What is textual criticism and why is it important in biblical studies?
-Textual criticism is the science of using biblical manuscripts to restore what the original text of the Bible said. It's important because we don't have the original copies of the gospels or any other biblical texts.
What is the main argument of Bart Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus'?
-In 'Misquoting Jesus', Ehrman focuses on the variations in biblical manuscripts and argues that these discrepancies raise questions about the reliability of the Bible's text.
What is the difference between the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics as discussed in the debate with Justin Bree?
-The laws of mathematics describe essential features of reality and are necessarily true in every possible world, while the laws of physics describe how objects in reality tend to behave and are contingent truths, meaning they could be different.
Why does Ehrman believe that Jesus's resurrection violates the laws of nature?
-Ehrman believes that Jesus's resurrection violates the laws of nature because, from his perspective, it implies a violation of the laws of physics, which he views as unbreakable.
What is the difference between the evidence for Jesus's resurrection and that for Apollonius of Tyana or Romulus according to the script?
-The evidence for Jesus's resurrection comes from first-hand accounts and writings within decades of the event, whereas the evidence for Apollonius of Tyana and Romulus comes from much later sources, sometimes centuries after their respective lifetimes.
Why does Ehrman argue that the New Testament never describes Jesus claiming to be God?
-Ehrman argues that while the Gospel of John may portray Jesus as claiming to be God, the other gospels and Paul's letters do not explicitly or implicitly claim Jesus's divinity, which he believes indicates that this claim is not historical.
What is the significance of the phrase 'I am' in the context of Jesus's claim to divinity in the Gospel of John?
-In the Gospel of John, when Jesus says 'I am', it is a reference to the name of God as revealed in the Old Testament (Yahweh), suggesting that Jesus is claiming the name of God for himself, which is seen as a claim to divinity.
What is the issue with using the number of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts as evidence of corruption or unreliability?
-The issue is that while there are many variants, they are spread across a large number of manuscripts, and most of these variants are trivial. The existence of variants in multiple manuscripts actually allows for more accurate textual criticism and can lead to a more reliable understanding of the original text.
How does the script address the concern that the textual variants might affect Christian doctrine?
-The script argues that despite the presence of textual variants, no orthodox doctrine or ethical practice of Christianity depends solely on any disputed wording, as there are always undisputed passages that teach the same truths.
What does Ehrman admit in the appendix of 'Misquoting Jesus' regarding the impact of textual variants on essential Christian beliefs?
-Ehrman concedes that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
Outlines
🎙️ Introduction to Bart Ehrman's Debate on the Resurrection
The video script introduces the topic of discussion: the views of New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who transitioned from a Conservative Christian to an agnostic atheist. The host, Kelly, invites viewers to share the podcast and subscribe to the channel. Ehrman's focus on textual criticism and his recent YouTube appearances are highlighted. The summary emphasizes Ehrman's debate on the resurrection of Jesus, where he argues against the possibility based on the violation of natural laws, contrasting with Justin Bass's defense of the resurrection in his book 'The Bedrock of Christianity'. The debate touches on the difference between the laws of nature and mathematics, with Ehrman suggesting that divine intervention in the natural order is as impossible as altering mathematical truths.
📚 Ehrman's Critique of Historical Jesus and Textual Evidence
This paragraph delves into Ehrman's skepticism about the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection, comparing it to ancient figures like Apollonius of Tiana and Romulus. Ehrman questions the validity of using testimony as evidence for such events. The summary clarifies the differences in the quality of evidence between Jesus and these figures, noting the late and questionable sources for Apollonius and the even more distant sources for Romulus. It emphasizes the earlier and more direct evidence for Jesus, including first-hand accounts from Paul and the gospels, which were written within decades of the events they describe.
🗣️ Jesus's Implicit Claims to Divinity in the Gospels
The script addresses Ehrman's argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed divinity in the synoptic gospels and that such claims are only found in the Gospel of John. The summary refutes this by highlighting instances in the synoptic gospels where Jesus's actions and words imply a divine identity, such as forgiving sins and knowing the thoughts of others. It also discusses Ehrman's interpretation of these events as anti-priestly polemics rather than claims to divinity, and the response that such interpretations overlook the context and implications of Jesus's actions within a Jewish religious framework.
👑 Jesus's Self-Identity as Divine in the Synoptic Tradition
This paragraph explores the idea that Jesus, as portrayed in the synoptic gospels, had a divine self-identity. The summary examines the scholarly consensus on Jesus's sayings and actions that suggest a high view of his relationship with God, including his choice of 12 disciples, which represents the true Israel and his authority to judge the tribes of Israel. It also discusses Ehrman's view that Jesus saw himself as a mortal apocalyptic prophet and the inconsistencies in this perspective with the evidence of Jesus's trial and his claims of a close relationship with Yahweh.
🔍 Ehrman's Perspective on Textual Variants in New Testament Manuscripts
The script presents Ehrman's views on the numerous textual variants found in New Testament manuscripts and the implications for understanding the original text. The summary critiques Ehrman's portrayal of these variants to a popular audience, suggesting that he overstates the extent of the problem and the impact on Christian doctrine. It explains that while there are many variants, they are spread across a large number of manuscripts, and most are trivial. The summary also points out that essential Christian beliefs are not dependent on the disputed wording and that the original text of the New Testament has been established with a high degree of certainty.
📖 Scholarly vs. Popular Bart Ehrman on New Testament Reliability
The final paragraph contrasts the 'scholarly Bart Ehrman' with the 'popular Bart Ehrman,' highlighting the difference in his conclusions when addressing academic versus lay audiences. The summary notes that Ehrman, in academic settings, acknowledges the high degree of accuracy in establishing the original text of the New Testament, but in popular works, he may give the impression of significant corruption and uncertainty. It includes anecdotes and quotes that illustrate this contrast and emphasizes the need for a balanced understanding of textual criticism and the reliability of the New Testament.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Bart Ehrman
💡Textual Criticism
💡Agnostic Atheist
💡Laws of Nature
💡Resurrection
💡Historical Jesus
💡Apollonius of Tyana
💡Romulus
💡Divine Claims
💡Synoptic Gospels
💡Textual Variants
Highlights
Introduction to Bart Ehrman as a New Testament scholar and his transition from a Conservative Christian to an agnostic atheist.
Ehrman's focus on textual criticism to restore the original text of the Bible using biblical manuscripts.
Critique of Ehrman's arguments on the resurrection of Jesus and the laws of nature versus the laws of physics.
Differentiation between the logical impossibilities of mathematics and the contingent truths of physics.
Discussion on the fine-tuning argument for God's existence and the life-permitting laws of physics.
Ehrman's challenge to the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection compared to other ancient figures like Apollonius of Tiana and Romulus.
Analysis of the quality of evidence for Jesus' resurrection versus that for Apollonius and Romulus, highlighting the differences in historical sources.
Ehrman's claim that the New Testament never describes Jesus claiming to be God, countered by references to the Gospel of John.
Debate over Jesus' self-identity as divine in the synoptic gospels despite not explicitly calling himself God.
Ehrman's argument that Jesus' ability to forgive sins was an anti-priestly polemic rather than a claim to divinity.
The significance of Jesus knowing the thoughts of individuals, a characteristic attributed only to God in the Bible.
Ehrman's view on Jesus' choice of 12 disciples and its representation of the true Israel, suggesting a divine self-identity.
Critique of Ehrman's assertion that Jesus was only a mortal apocalyptic prophet and not divine.
Ehrman's discussion on the political reasons for Jesus' crucifixion rather than his divine claims.
Analysis of the trial narratives and the charge of blasphemy against Jesus, questioning Ehrman's interpretation.
Ehrman's perspective on the vast number of textual variants in New Testament manuscripts and their implications for Christian doctrine.
The argument that the number of variants in New Testament manuscripts is not as problematic as Ehrman suggests, and the reliability of the text.
Ehrman's concession in his academic work that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants.
The distinction between 'scholarly Bart Ehrman' and 'popular Bart Ehrman' in terms of his representation of the New Testament text's reliability.
Recommendation of resources for further exploration of Ehrman's work and the reliability of the gospels.
Transcripts
[Music]
hey everyone welcome to the council
Trent podcast I'm your host Kelly
dancer's apologist Trent horn and today
I want to talk about the New Testament
scholar Bart Ehrman so irman was once a
Conservative Christian and now
identifies as an agnostic atheist he's
been popping up all over YouTube
recently with the same faulty arguments
that he's been proposing for decades but
before I share with you what those
arguments are I hope that you'll help us
share this podcast with a lot more
people you can do that by liking this
video if you actually do like it
subscribing to the channel if you really
don't want to miss our content and by
becoming a partner with us at
trenthornpodcast.com you get access to
my private study series and a weekly
Patron only live stream every Wednesday
night all that and more at
trenthornpodcast.com all right so
bartender is probably one of the most
famous biblical scholars in the world
he's published numerous best-selling
books including was probably his most
famous book misquoting Jesus
he focuses on textual criticism which is
the science of using biblical
manuscripts to restore what the original
text of the Bible said
because we don't have the original
copies of the gospels or any of the
other biblical texts now I notice on
YouTube he's been making the rounds on
different atheist YouTube channels so I
just want to highlight a few of the
claims that he's made that Christian
philosophers and biblical Scholars have
addressed and show what's wrong with
them
so first let's start off with this clip
from a debate that he had on the
unbelievable podcast it was about
Christ's Resurrection in this clip
Justin bass who by the way has a great
book defending the resurrection it's
called the Bedrock of Christianity bass
asks irman why Ehrman thinks Jesus was
not raised from the dead
why don't I think a person got raised
from the dead yes oh why don't you think
Jesus got reasoned I don't think anybody
got anything to do it because it's it
violates the laws of nature okay okay I
mean so you have the kind of a
materialist fundamentalist view well let
me ask this I mean you think Audrey's
Jesus from the day right do you think
God can break the laws of mathematics
himself no because he is exactly
mathematics is his language that's right
the other language he uses is physics
can he break the laws of physics
I mean I think we're good enough no no
we are not because this is precise you
can ask me why I don't believe well and
the reason I don't believe it is because
it violates the law of physics and I
don't think things into his system I
don't think God can break the law of
physics anymore they can break the law
of mathematics feeding things into his
system to bring a dead person to life is
not the same thing as making two plus
two five that's completely different
things uh there are both laws that have
never been broken in history except in
the case of Jesus right Justin does a
good job pointing out that these two
things are not equally impossible
because the laws of physics and the laws
of mathematics are very different the
laws in mathematics describe an
essential feature of reality they are
necessarily true they're true in every
possible World God could not have made a
world where two plus two equals five any
more than he could have made a world
with married Bachelors or objects that
have color but not shape seriously try
to think of an object that has color but
doesn't have shape you can't these laws
represent logical or metaphysical
impossibilities they're descriptions of
the way reality has to be
but the laws of physics are not
descriptions of ways reality has to be
they're descriptions of how objects in
reality tend to behave and objects could
have behaved differently this means the
laws of physics are contingent truths
they're not necessary like mathematics
God could have made the speed of light
different when he made the universe but
he could not have made mathematical
axioms different God can make the speed
of light different right now in fact the
fine-tuning argument for God's existence
rests on the fact that if the constants
and conditions in the laws of physics
had been set randomly they should be
life prohibiting but since their life
permitting that's evidence the laws of
physics were purposely set by a designer
so ehrman's objection doesn't work
because the laws of physics do not
command the universe they're just
descriptions of how things in the
universe tend to behave the fact that
objects always behave in the same way is
actually evidence for God instilling
order and regular in the universe but
God can intervene and cause objects to
behave in different ways such as by
reversing entropy in a dead body coming
back to life so this is nothing like God
changing math or logic
next in this clip from his appearance on
palogia's YouTube channel Ehrman is
responding to Protestant philosopher
William Lane Craig's recent critique of
him ehrmann says Craig's approach to the
historical Jesus does not work because
if you believe based on testimony that
Jesus rose from the dead well why don't
you believe other ancient figures like
apollonius of Tiana or Romulus were
raised to heaven or from the dead you
cannot use the kind of criteria that he
uses for the historical Jesus to do
ancient history or to do medieval
history or any other kind of History
look you have stories about apollonius
of Tiana going to heaven and being seen
going to heaven and coming back and
eyewitness account you have an
eyewitness first-hand account of Romulus
going to heaven so look somebody said so
okay is that your kind of evidence this
makes it sound like the evidence for
apollonius Romulus and Jesus are all the
same quality but they're not apollonius
was the first Century philosopher and
alleged wonder worker from the town of
Tiana in what's now modern-day turkey
the only sorts we have for apollonius is
the life of apollonius written by
Phyllis Stratus 150 years later in the
3rd Century the wife of the Roman
Emperor at the time commissioned
philistratus to write the biography
about apollonius probably to compete
with Christianity scholar Maria giselka
notes that the apollonius legend grew
quote thanks to a governor of bithynia
so siena's hierakles who use
philistratus's work none too popular in
the third Century to combat Christianity
philistratus's main source is an alleged
disciple of apollonius named Damas who
was said to have written a memoir about
apollonius but some Scholars think that
Damas never even existed and that
philistratus invented him to make the
evidence for Jesus similar to apollonius
you'd have to have Christianity rest
entirely on tertullian writing two
centuries later at the request of a
Roman Emperor to combat mithrism and say
the tertullian was writing a biography
of Jesus using one gospel as a source
but that gospel is now lost in that
scenario I would say Jesus's
resurrection is probably a legend
because we only have an allegation of a
first-hand source written centuries
later not like the actual evidence we
have like first-hand accounts from Paul
who said that he saw the Risen Jesus as
well as Paul's corroboration of having
met other people who saw the Risen Jesus
so the evidence for Jesus and apollonius
is completely different now when it
comes to Romulus the differences are
even more extreme Romulus was the
supposed founder of Rome and he lived in
the 8th Century BC the earliest sources
we have for Romulus are Ovid and Virgil
from the first century about 700 years
later and quintus Fabius picture who
wrote in the 3rd Century or 500 years
after Romulus allegedly lived once again
this would be like Christians saying
Jesus rose from the dead because Pope
Gregory the Great said that he did 500
years after the fact and we don't have
an earlier Source this is not comparable
as I said to the evidence we have from
Paul as well as the gospels which are
not lost documents cited centuries later
but we can reconstruct the actual
documents and see what they said and
know that they were written within a few
decades after Jesus's resurrection next
we have irman's recent appearance on
Cosmic Skeptics podcast Alex O'Connor
who I've debated multiple times in the
past in this part of the discussion
ehrmann cast out on the New Testament
ever describing Jesus claiming to be God
he does say Jesus claims to be God in
the Gospel of John and this is a useful
point to bring up if you're discussing
the Bible with a Jehovah's Witness or a
Muslim who says that the New Testament
never teaches Jesus as God sends urman
who's in agnostic even admits that
John's gospel certainly does teach that
Jesus claimed to be God Jesus never
calls himself God
of our earliest sources where Jesus
starts calling himself God is the Gospel
of John our last source
but in this particular case in John 8 58
when he says before Abraham was I am he
doesn't say I am something else I just I
am that's significant because in the Old
Testament in Exodus chapter 3 where
Moses is uh being told by God to go to
the uh go to the Israelites and tell
them that you know they're going to be
set free and go to the Pharaoh and
demand that he led to those people go he
says well if they ask me you know what's
your name what am I supposed to say and
God replies I am tell them I am has sent
you and so that comes to be taken as the
name based the basis for the name of God
I am and so if Jesus says I am
and he's referring to himself he seems
to be claiming the name of God from the
book of the old from the name of Yahweh
in the Old Testament and so uh his
Jewish opponents take up stones to Stone
him to death but Urban also says this
claim is not historical because he says
it is only found in the Gospel of John
and that Jesus never explicitly or
implicitly claims Divinity in the other
gospels and this isn't recorded in the
letters of Paul it seems to me
completely implausible that six authors
would describe the sayings of Jesus
knowing that he's called himself God and
neglect to mention that part Erman
should know that arguments from Silence
can be really tricky Herman himself has
taken mythicus to task for saying that
Jesus never existed at all because Paul
doesn't describe Jesus's Miracles or
other aspects of his Earthly Ministry
since Paul doesn't discuss these
important stories it's not surprising
that Paul doesn't talk about Authority
claims that Jesus made during his
Earthly Ministry now when we look at the
earlier gospels the synoptic gospels the
lack of Jesus's explicit claims to
Divinity don't disprove that he never
claimed it at all now when we call these
synoptic gospels by the way it's because
Matthew Mark and Luke tell a very
similar story I would argue that they do
describe Jesus acting in a way that
communicates his divinity to others just
not as explicitly now Ehrman anticipates
this reply and says that these implicit
testimonies to Divinity on Jesus's
behalf these stories are actually
misinterpreted by Christians one example
that he gives is Mark 2 5 where Jesus
says your sins are forgiven irman says
that in this story Jesus is not claiming
to be God and having the ability to
forgive sins rather he's making an
anti-priestly polemic and he's saying
the ability to forgive sins lies outside
of the priests in the Jewish temple it's
Jesus enemies who say that God Can Only
God can forgive sins that's an important
Point yes second Point Jesus does not
say in order to show on God
take up your palette and walk he says in
order to show that the son of man has
Authority
to forgive sins well who's given him the
authority yeah
God has and in fact uh at near the end
of the Gospel narratives we have Jesus
sending his disciples
to spread his message but also giving
them the power to forgive sins yep and
and that's the thing if you have
authority somebody's given you the
authority and the other the other point
that most people wouldn't have any way
to know is that uh as the great the
great New Testament scholar EP Sanders
uh pointed out in the temple when Jewish
priests would perform a sacrifice when
they would somebody would bring a you
know a lamb or something there'd be a
sacrifice once the sacrifice was
performed the priest would pronounce
that their sins had been forgiven
they had that Authority as priests what
Sanders argued is that what Jesus claim
is not to be God he's claiming to have
greater Authority than the priests
that this is an anti-priestly polemic
it's got nothing to do with Jesus
Calling himself God but there is a
detail in Mark's gospel that Ehrman is
overlooking that distinguishes it from
the delegation to forgive sins that
Jesus gives the apostles in John's
gospel remember that Erman said he
claimed Jesus's opponents said only God
can forgive sins and Jesus sees the man
sees their faith that they know he can
heal him and he looks at the man and
says your sins are forgiven
and the Pharisees say wait a second
only God can forgive sins it's Jesus
enemies who say that God Can Only God
can forgive sins but that's not what
Mark describes read the passage
carefully and when Jesus saw their faith
he said to the paralytic my son your
sins are forgiven now some of the
scribes were sitting there questioning
in their hearts why does this man speak
to us it is blasphemy who can forgive
sins but God alone and immediately Jesus
perceiving in his spirit that they thus
question within themselves said to them
why do you question thus in your hearts
which is easier to say to the paralytic
your sins are forgiven or to say rise
take up your palate and walk Jesus knows
what people think in their hearts which
is something only God knows in First
Kings 8 39 Solomon prays to God saying
thou only knowest the hearts of all the
children of men and Paul says in First
Corinthians 2 11 for what person knows a
man's thoughts except the spirit of the
man which is in him in other words only
a person can know his own thoughts and
no other human being can know them the
only other being who could know inner
thoughts is God since First Chronicles
28 9 says the Lord searches every mind
and understands every plan and thought
and when you look at Jesus's parables in
the synoptic gospels you see he presents
himself as not just another human
prophet in the parable of the wicked
tenants The Vineyard represents the
people of Israel and the owner of the
vineyard represents God Jesus identifies
himself not with the owner's servants
who were sent and rejected by the tenant
farmers of Israel he identifies with the
son of the owner of the vineyard the son
of Yahweh all this shows that Jesus and
the synoptic gospels has a very high
view of his own relationship with God
that makes sense if he is God's son by
nature or that is equally Divine with
the father in fact a point that Ehrman
makes about what Jesus almost certainly
said in the synoptic tradition supports
the view that Jesus had a Divine
self-identity what Scholars do is they
go through every saying of Jesus they go
through every line they go through every
word to try and figure out did this
happen or not they say this or not
there's this one saying that almost
certainly Jesus said I think which is
he's talking to the 12 disciples you get
this in Matthew and Luke and he says to
them uh in I think in the Matthew
version he says to that
um that u12 speak to the 12 disciples
when the kingdom comes u12 will be
seated on 12 Thrones ruling the 12
tribes of Israel 12 12.
I Think Jesus must have said this
because Judas is one of the twelve he's
talking to yeah and a later Christian if
you're trying to ask what would a
Christian make up a Christian's not
going to make up a later saying where
Jesus is saying that Judas is one of the
going to be one of the 12 rulers so I
think the same probably goes back to
Jesus
but why did Jesus choose 12 disciples in
his book Jesus apocalyptic prophet of
the New Millennium Ehrman writes why did
Jesus choose 12 disciples why not 9 or
15 the 12 disciples represent the true
Israel the people of God who would enter
into his glorious Kingdom when the son
of man arrives a more interesting
question would be why didn't Jesus
choose 11 disciples if he had Jesus
would have had the role of being one of
the tribes of Israel like Levi and so he
too would sit on one of the thrones
judging Israel but it seems clear that
Jesus thought of himself as Yahweh he
represents Yahweh who first gathered the
Twelve Tribes and so Jesus will have
this same Divine Authority in the New
Kingdom of God that's why Jesus says in
Luke 22 29-30 as my father appointed a
kingdom for me so do I appoint for you
that you may eat and drink at my table
in my kingdom and sit on Thrones judging
the 12 tribes of Israel irman might say
that the earliest sources show us the
that Jesus only saw himself as a
messenger and the person who would lead
the twelve would not be Jesus but
another person called the son of man
Herman holds the view that when Jesus
says the son of man would come to judge
the world Jesus was talking about
another person he writes and multiply
attested Traditions Jesus did use the
phrase son of man to refer to a cosmic
judge of the earth he seems to be
referring to someone other than himself
but this doesn't make sense of the
blasphemy charge made against Jesus at
his trial in the interview with O'Connor
Ehrman brushes over this point saying
Jesus was executed by the Romans merely
for political reasons because he claimed
to be the king of the Jews uh because
he's actually not crucified for being
calling himself God his Divine claims
have no no relationship to any of the
crucifixion narratives
um and so it's not that that's going to
get him in trouble uh so so I mean what
is it what is the the oh it's pretty
clear when you when you read the trial
narratives Pontius Pilate kills him for
claiming to be the king of the Jews and
that's a political claim and so pilate
isn't concerned about Jewish Theology
and the Romans did execute him as a
political threat but the trial irman
refers to can't just be the Roman trial
we also have to wonder why was Jesus
arraigned at the Jewish trial under the
Sanhedrin and it is here that Ehrman
admits his theory about Jesus's identity
does not explain why Jesus was sentenced
to death
he writes the following in his book the
real problem though is that it is
difficult to understand the trial
proceeding if it actually happened as
narrated in our earliest account the
high priest asked Jesus if he is in fact
the Messiah the Son of the Blessed so
far so good but when Jesus affirms that
he is and says that he the high priest
will see the son of man coming on the
Clouds Of Heaven sayings that in
themselves coincide perfectly well with
Jesus's teachings elsewhere the high
priest Cries Out blasphemy and calls for
his execution the problem is that if
this in fact is what Jesus said he
didn't commit any blasphemy it was not
Blasphemous to call oneself the Messiah
this simply meant that you understood
yourself to be the deliverer ruler of
your people other Jews made this claim
about themselves and about others both
before Jesus and afterward never with
the charge of blasphemy nor was it
Blasphemous to say that the son of man
was soon to arrive this was simply to
acknowledge that the Book of Daniel had
predicted something that would happen in
your own day something other apocalyptic
prophets were saying as well without
being found Blasphemous it seems
unlikely then that the trial proceeded
the way that it's described in Mark our
earliest source and quote Herman then
writes the following in a footnote to
this section he writes one explanation
for Mark's narrative is that since Mark
understood that Jesus himself was the
son of man he assumed that the high
priest inferred this as well and so
thought that Jesus was claiming to be
the Divine judge of the earth a claim
that he found Blasphemous if this is
right though it's a view that makes
sense in terms of Mark's gospel written
many years later and from a Christian
perspective it makes less sense
historically as something that actually
happened when Jesus was confronted by
the Jewish high priest or maybe it does
make sense because it explains all the
details related to the trial and to
Jesus's radical claims of having an
intimate relationship with Yahweh
perhaps what should be reconsidered is
the assumption that Jesus was just a
mortal apocalyptic prophet
finally we have Bart ehrmann talking on
genetically modified Skeptics Channel
about New Testament variants in the
manuscripts there's not a specific
criticism I have here and he does give a
nice history about the development of
textual criticism and studying
manuscripts and copies of the Bible
my general criticism is that when Ehrman
talks about textual criticism and
manuscript variance to a popular
audience he gives the impression that
this huge number of variants is a big
problem we can't really know what the
original text of the New Testament said
and that it causes a big problem for
Christian doctrine but uh that it caused
a huge fear because all he quoted uh you
know thirty thousand places where these
manuscripts are different from each
other and so you know the scholars and
all sorts of things that are problematic
debate but this was the beginning of it
when Scholars started realizing that the
uh that the very words of the text were
problematic that there that there are
differences and that sometimes it's hard
to know what the author originally wrote
and there are disagreements in their
places where we don't know which words
the author wrote when you read Herman's
popular works you see the same attitude
he writes in misquoting Jesus not only
do we not have the originals we don't
have the first copies of The Originals
we don't even have the copies of the
copies of The Originals or copies of the
copies of the copies of The Originals
what we have are copies made later much
later in most instances they are copies
made many centuries later and these
copies all differ from one another in
many thousands of places possibly it is
easiest to put in comparative terms
there are more differences among our
manuscripts than there are words in the
New Testament first the reason there are
so many variants is because there are so
many manuscripts for example suppose
that each of the twenty thousand
manuscripts of the New Testament we
possessed has 20 variants in it this
adds up to 400 000 variants but this
huge number of variants is distributed
across a huge number of manuscripts
we're left actually with individual
manuscripts that might contain only a
few dozen variants and those variants
themselves are not problematic but let's
make a contrast though consider the
first six books of the annals of the of
the Roman historian tacitus this is one
of our primary historical sources about
ancient Rome there's only one copy of
this section of the annals it was
written a thousand years after the
original there are no textual variants
because there are no other copies to
compare it to
that's actually a bad thing we have no
way of knowing what is original in this
because we can't do textual criticism on
it but a new testament with many
variants distributed across many
manuscripts is more reliable than a new
testament with few variants that are
distributed only across a few or a
single manuscript and as I said the
variance the differences are almost
always trivial a name might be
misspelled or the names the order of the
names might be swapped but this isn't a
problem for people that know that you
know John has only one n in it the
biblical scholar Craig blumberg says the
following of the hundreds of thousands
of variants in the New Testament
manuscripts only about a tenth of one
percent are interesting enough to make
their way into footnotes in most English
translations it cannot be emphasized
strongly enough that no Orthodox
Doctrine or ethical practice of
Christianity depends solely on any
disputed wording there are always
Undisputed passages one can consult that
teach the same truths tellingly in the
appendix to the paperback edition of
misquoting Jesus Ehrman himself concedes
that essential Christian beliefs are not
affected by textual variants in the
manuscript tradition of the New
Testament end quote it is too bad that
this admission appears in an appendix
and comes only after repeated criticism
second in his more academic work ehrmann
is much more reserved in his conclusions
many years ago William Lane Craig gave a
talk on Bart Ehrman where he also made
the same observation what has happened I
think is there a really two Bart
Herman's that are on display Dan Wallace
who is a textual scholar a Dallas
Theological Seminary likes to
distinguish between what he calls the
scholarly Bart Ehrman and the popular
Bart ehrmann the scholarly Bart Ehrman
knows that the text of the New Testament
has been established to 99
accuracy that is to say
the original wording of the New
Testament is now established to about 99
percent so that the degree of
uncertainty in the text of the New
Testament is only about one percent good
Bart knows that the text of the New
Testament is virtually
certain
bad Bart deliberately
misrepresents the situation to lay
audiences to make them think that the
New Testament is incredibly corrupted
and uncertain here's an example of
scholarly or good bar being more
reserved in a book he wrote with the
conservative New Testament scholar Bruce
Metzger it called the text of the New
Testament it's transmission corruption
and restoration irman and Metzger say of
the church father's commentaries on
scripture that quote so extensive are
these citations that if all other
sources for our knowledge of the text of
the New Testament were destroyed they
would be sufficient alone for the
Reconstruction of practically the entire
New Testament
Craig also offers this anecdote of a
radio interview he heard with Ehrman
that shows how people can get the wrong
idea from his popular scholarship and
it's very interesting that when the bad
Bart is pressed on this issue by someone
he'll come clean and admit this for
example I heard Bart Ehrman interviewed
on a radio show some time ago about
misquoting Jesus and the interviewer was
talking to him about how uncertain the
text of the New Testament all the
thousands and thousands of variants that
there are and how uncertain it is and
finally the interviewer said to him well
Dr Ehrman what do you think the text of
the Year New Testament originally really
said
and Ehrman replied well I don't
understand what you mean what are you
talking about and the interviewer said
well the text of the New Testament it's
it's been so corrupted as it's been
copied what do you think the original
text actually said and Herman said what
says pretty much what we have today what
it
says now and and the the the interviewer
was utterly confused he said well I I
thought it was all corrupted he says
well we've been able to re-establish the
text of the New Testament as textual
Scholars so that he knows and when
pressed admits that the text in the New
Testament is 99 established all right
that's all I have today though I'm sure
ehrman's work will come up in future
episodes since he's published so much on
the Bible and Christianity if you like
more great resources on this I recommend
the Anthology how God became Jesus that
was published in response to ehrman's
book how Jesus became God Daniel
Wallace's Anthology revisiting the
corruption of the New Testament
manuscript patristic and apocryphal
evidence and also the debate that my
colleague Jimmy Aiken had with Bart
Ehrman on the reliability of the gospels
you can check that out in the Catholic
answers Channel but thank you guys so
much and I hope you have a very blessed
day
hey thanks for watching this video if
you want to help us produce more great
content like this be sure to click
subscribe and go to
trenthornpodcast.com to become a premium
subscriber you'll help us create more
videos like this and get access to bonus
content and sneak peeks of our upcoming
projects
foreign
関連動画をさらに表示
The Reliability of New Testament Manuscripts with Dr. Craig Evans: Digging for Truth Episode 29
The Gospel of John: Overview | Whiteboard Bible Study
New Testament Summary: A Complete Animated Overview
Was Jesus Actually Resurrected
A Dragon Will Come And Kill The Messiah - Confused Christian | Sheikh Mohammed | #SpeakersCorner
When Ben Shapiro Got HUMBLED on Jesus
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)