Bart Ehrman's Bad Arguments Go On Tour

Summary

In 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

00:00

🎙️ 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.

05:02

📚 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.

10:02

🗣️ 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.

15:04

👑 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.

20:06

🔍 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.

25:08

📖 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.

Keywords

💡Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is a prominent New Testament scholar who has transitioned from being a conservative Christian to identifying as an agnostic atheist. His work focuses on textual criticism, aiming to restore the original text of the Bible using manuscripts. In the video, Ehrman's arguments and their critiques are central to the discussion, illustrating the ongoing debate over the interpretation of biblical texts.

💡Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is the science of using biblical manuscripts to restore the original text of the Bible. It is crucial in understanding the evolution and accuracy of biblical texts over time. In the video, the host discusses Ehrman's focus on this field and how it relates to debates about the authenticity of biblical narratives, such as the Resurrection of Christ.

💡Agnostic Atheist

An agnostic atheist is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity due to the lack of empirical evidence. Ehrman's identification as such is highlighted in the video, as it frames his perspective on biblical analysis and his skepticism towards supernatural claims made in religious texts.

💡Laws of Nature

The laws of nature refer to the fundamental scientific principles that describe the behavior of the natural world. In the script, Ehrman argues that the Resurrection of Jesus violates these laws, which the host counters by distinguishing between the laws of nature and mathematics, suggesting that the former can be subject to divine intervention.

💡Resurrection

Resurrection in a religious context typically refers to the rising of a person from the dead, as is the case with Jesus Christ in Christian belief. The video discusses debates around the historical validity of Christ's Resurrection, with Ehrman expressing skepticism based on perceived violations of natural laws.

💡Historical Jesus

The Historical Jesus refers to the study of the life of Jesus based on historical evidence, distinct from religious interpretations. Ehrman's work often delves into this area, questioning traditional narratives and prompting debates on the reliability of sources about Jesus' life and teachings.

💡Apollonius of Tyana

Apollonius of Tyana was a first-century philosopher and wonder worker. In the video, Ehrman is criticized for drawing parallels between the evidence for Jesus' Resurrection and stories about Apollonius, which the host argues are not comparable due to differences in the quality and age of the sources.

💡Romulus

Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, is mentioned in the script to illustrate the differences in the historical evidence for his life compared to that of Jesus. The host uses Romulus to argue against Ehrman's methodology, pointing out the much later and less reliable sources for Romulus' story.

💡Divine Claims

Divine claims refer to statements or assertions of godhood or divine authority. The video discusses Ehrman's views on Jesus' claims to divinity, with the host arguing that Ehrman underestimates the evidence for Jesus' self-identification as divine in the Gospels.

💡Synoptic Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which share similar narratives and are believed to have been written earlier than the Gospel of John. The video mentions these gospels in the context of debates over Jesus' claims to divinity and the reliability of the portrayal of his teachings.

💡Textual Variants

Textual variants refer to the differences found in various manuscripts of a text. Ehrman is known for discussing the vast number of variants in New Testament manuscripts, which the host argues are often misrepresented as a significant problem for understanding the original text, when in fact they contribute to the reliability of the text through extensive comparison.

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