Dr. Bart Ehrman’s works could rattle the faith of naïve Christians. Hence, those who debate Christians frequently appeal to Ehrman’s works.
This is a beginner’s guide to comprehend Ehrman, and the scholarly response from Christian apologists to debunk his attacks against Historic Christianity.
Who Is Bart Ehrman?
“Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill…An expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, has written or edited thirty books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews…Five of his books have been on the New York Times Bestseller list: Misquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus Interrupted; Forged; and How Jesus Became God,” says Ehrman’s website.1
Why Did Ehrman Renounce Christianity?
Dr. William Lane Craig, a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University, is a contemporary to Dr. Ehrman. Craig and Ehrman attended the same college and studied Greek under the same professor. Craig briefly narrates Ehrman’s apostasy from Christianity, “Sadly, Dr. Ehrman came to radically different conclusions as a result of his studies at Princeton University. He pointedly describes how he came to doubt the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as a result of his studies and how this finally led him to abandon faith in Christ. Eventually, he became an agnostic, finally an atheist, and today he is an apostate Christian to all appearances and writes books against the Christian faith which are enormously destructive and which have proved very troubling to many Christians who read them and as a result are filled with doubts about their own Christian faith and experience.”2
Why Did Ehrman Become Famous?
Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus” was published in November 2005. Within one week, it was among the top fifty sellers at Amazon. Within three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold. Ehrman was much sought after by media outlets.3
“Why all the hoopla? …Jesus sells. But not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. And with a book entitled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, a ready audience was created via the hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical Jesus is a figment…More importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wants reasons not to believe, who considers the Bible a book of myths…”4 says Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
What Are Ehrman’s Accusations Against Historic Christianity?
Dr. Craig A. Evans, the John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins and Dean of the School of Christian Thought at Houston Baptist University, offers a terse yet highly meaningful synopsis of Bart Ehrman’s attack against Historic Christianity, “In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman argues that today’s text of the Bible (and he mostly speaks in reference to the Greek New Testament) does not exactly match that of the original writings and that some of the changes in the text were deliberate, at times motivated by theological dogmas. Therefore, we really don’t know what the evangelists originally wrote. In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman shows why the Gospel narratives cannot be harmonized, nor their histories trusted. In Forged: Writing in the Name of God, he argues that several books of the Bible were not written by their ascribed authors. Most recently, in How Jesus Became God, Ehrman argues that the early church’s belief that Jesus was divine was not what Jesus claimed, nor what his original disciples believed.”5
Where Do I Begin To Debunk Ehrman?
Ehrman is a textual critic, not an expert in the research of Historical Jesus, says William Lane Craig, “Bart Ehrman’s area of expertise is the text – the original Greek text – of the New Testament. He is a textual critic. Although he likes to posture himself in his books as a historian – an expert or scholar in life of Jesus research – in fact that is not his area of specialization or training. He is a textual critic who is someone who works with manuscripts to establish the original text of the autographs – or the original writings – of the New Testament…Unfortunately, Bart Ehrman has used his prestige as a text critic to give the impression to lay people that the text of the New Testament is terribly corrupted and uncertain.”6
Ehrman is a double-faced accuser; he knows that the New Testament is 99% established yet he attacks the veracity of the New Testament, “…there are really two Bart Ehrmans that are on display…the scholarly Bart Ehrman and the popular Bart Ehrman. 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%. So the degree of uncertainty of the text of the New Testament is only about 1%. There are about 138,000 Greek words in the New Testament. Of these, only about 1,400 are uncertain today. 99% are established with real certainty. Of that 1% that still remains uncertain, virtually uncertain, bad Bart deliberately misrepresents the situation to lay audiences to make them think that the New Testament is incredibly corrupted and uncertain. It is very interesting that when the bad Bart is pressed on this issue by someone he will 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 is, all the thousands and thousands of variants that there are…and finally the interviewer said to him, “Dr. Ehrman, what do you think the text of the New Testament originally really said?” And Ehrman replied, “I don’t understand what you mean. What are you talking about?” And the interviewer said, “The text of the New Testament – it has been so corrupted as it has been copied. What do you think the original text actually said?” And Ehrman said, “Well, it says pretty much what we have today – what it says now.” And the interviewer was utterly confused. He said, “I thought it was all corrupted” and Ehrman said “We’ve been able to reestablish the text of the New Testament as textual scholars.” So he knows and when pressed admits that the text of the New Testament is 99% established.”7
Ehrman argues like a fundamentalist and is frequently guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle, says Dr. Craig Evans, “The problem is that, in his popular books, Ehrman is frequently guilty of the logical fallacy of the excluded middle, the idea that there are only two options — either we have every word of the original text or we do not; either we have harmonious accounts of the teaching and activities of Jesus or we don’t. Bart Ehrman is arguing like a fundamentalist. It is an all-or-nothing approach. If the Bible is truly inspired (and therefore trustworthy), it must be free from discrepancies. But this is not how most seasoned scholars think, including evangelicals. Nor was it the way early Christians thought.”8
Ehrman will not engage the best critics in the field, claims Nick Peters while reviewing Ehrman’s latest book, “Jesus Before the Gospels,” “…he will very rarely interact with those who are his best critics in the field. In Forged, he spends no serious time on the work of Randy Richards on the usage of secretaries, for instance. In How Jesus Became God he barely interacts with Hurtado and Hengel and does not even once mention Bauckham. So it is that in this book, he doesn’t deal with many of the best critics out there, such as the work of Walton and Sandy in The Lost World of Scripture or with the work of Robert McIver in Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels.”9
To conclude, Ehrman has been more than adequately debunked. This article merely provides a basic understanding of Bart Ehrman and offers a starting point to debunk his accusations. The reader can gain deeper insight into Ehrman’s fallacies upon studying the materials cited in the endnotes and the scholarly work by the Christian apologists that are in the public domain.
Endnotes:
Websites cited were last accessed on 18th August, 2016.
1http://www.bartdehrman.com/barts-biography/
2http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-work-of-bart-ehrman-gracepoint-church#ixzz4H6kIbuVC
3https://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
4Ibid.
5http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/04/16/fundamentalist-arguments-against-fundamentalism/31725
6http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-work-of-bart-ehrman-gracepoint-church#ixzz4H6kaTIwv
7http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-work-of-bart-ehrman-gracepoint-church#ixzz4H6l6dm6h
8http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/04/16/fundamentalist-arguments-against-fundamentalism/31725
Raj
Based on my interactions with you so far, you are will not come close to debunking Bart Ehrman – for the most part he will run circles around – and that without much effort. May I kind suggest approach the subject with a great deal more humility?
Sincerely
In the agape of Christ
Greg Logan
I dont see where Raj states that he has, or can, debunk Ehrman. Raj states that Ehrman has been debunked and provides citations.
Mark
I appreciate your comment – HOWEVER, Raj makes a stunningly false statement almost at the very beginning – a lie really – since Bart has been very clear about his process on his own site.
Raj is clearly here looking to debunk Ehrman… but I have learned that Raj has a much higher view of himself than is warranted by either his content – or, sadly, here, by his integrity.
Greg
PS – I am glad to have a genuine conversation if you are genuinely willing. These are key issues of the Kingdom of God.
Mark
I just went back and read through Raj’s “citation” – and his commentary attached to each. Complete bunk!!! Literally every one.
In fact, Ehrman has gone head to head with EACH of these individuals (Craig, Wallace, etc.). I have listened REPEATEDLY to each of their debates – and Raj has misrepresented – severely – reality in each case.
The FACT is being an historian is no big deal – likewise being a scholar – it is simply learning how to function within certain contexts and constraints (and, naturally, taking the time to gather the content and tools…). I was essentially a professional student until the age of 35 including several years in Bible College – and repeated trips to the UW – the academic mind is easily accessible to me – regardless who is speaking at this point. In this matter – as I have listened to self-proclaimed evangelical historians – their ability to so function is modest or worse – as they are controlled by their agenda – rather than facts.
And Bart is easily able to point out their fallacies – as any modestly trained philosophy student could do as well.
Again – Raj’s post here is disingenuous AT BEST – really it is simply another piece of dishonest evangelical apologetic smoke and mirrors meant to stumble the newbies from reality. This is ALL completely contrary to the high call in Christ – I find it pathetic that someone’s faith is so needy that they will grasp at straws rather than the cross.
Sincerely,
Greg Logan
Rajkumar Richard,
I don’t think you’re giving Ehrman a fair shake, here, and to be honest, it doesn’t seem like you are even *interested* in giving him a fair shake. The tone of your post seems adversarial, as if you have decided from the beginning the Ehrman is wrong and needs a thorough “debunking.” I prefer to take a more even-handed approach, looking to see what we can learn from Ehrman and taking note when he overstates his case or otherwise errs.
As it turns out, a lot of what you said is inaccurate or exaggerated. For example, as has been pointed out above, Ehrman lost his faith over the problem of suffering, *not* over the issue of inerrancy as you originally claimed. He has explained this both in his publications and in his debates and lectures. I’m a bit surprised that you have continued to resist making this simple correction, especially when it is such a mundane, cut-and-dry issue. (See here: https://ehrmanblog.org/an-interview-about-my-agnosticism/ where Erhman explains that his deconversion to agnosticism was “unrelated to his scholarship” and was instead a response to the problem of suffering.)
Also, you quote WL Craig in claiming that Ehrman is not a historian, but this is quite a glaring mistake on Craig’s part. Sure, Ehrman’s *main* area of expertise is textual criticism—but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have expertise in other areas, e.g. the historical Jesus and the development of early Christian doctrine. It is quite clear from reading his CV that he has training and a long history of research far beyond just textual criticism, with peer-reviewed publications on the historical Jesus, ante-Nicene Christian history, and other areas. He is certainly more than qualified to teach about the history of Christianity, and indeed that is exactly what the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hired him to do—what he has been doing successfully for many years. So, whatever legitimate complaints you may have about Ehrman, objecting to his qualifications is not among them.
It’s also troubling that you would call Ehrman “double-faced.” This makes me think you haven’t actually read his much if any of his work, and the fact that you would resort to name-calling makes me doubt you are serious enough to be willing to do so. Contrary to what you claim, Ehrman is quite clear, even in his popular books, that the NT text is very well-preserved (although by no means “99% established,” a bogus statistic which has been uncritically thrown around apologetics circles). For instance, on p87 of Misquoting Jesus, he explains how the many textual variants are actually a *good* thing, because they help us better reconstruct the original readings.
You also claim, via an Evans quote, that Ehrman is guilty of the fallacy of excluded middle because, according to you, he takes an all-or-nothing approach. Again, this is patently false, and anyone who read his work with any attention should know that. Evans should defintely know it, and so I’m not sure what he’s basing his accusation on. Neither you nor he gives any specific example, so I’m not sure what else to say about this except that I challenge you to find a quotation of Ehrman where he commits this fallacy. I am betting you won’t find anything.
Finally, it has already been pointed out above that Ehrman does engage with other scholars of high caliber. It’s absurd to suggest that he is one-sided, since he clearly does interact with many opposing views. Maybe he doesn’t interact with your favorite scholar on such-and-such subject, but that’s not the same as being one-sided, since he does interact with many other scholars.
Ehrman is definitely a historian and has been for years. When he said that textual scholars have reestablished the NT text, he meant that the words have been reestablished, not its historical accuracy.
What do you mean by “words have been reestablished, not its historical accuracy.”
Oh. It just means that even if we know what the text said, that does not establish that the text is true.
This is certainly the case, but that is a separate debate and Ehrman tends to speak more on historical matters than textual ones anyway.
There’s some inaccurate information on this post.
Firstly, Ehrman didn’t lose his faith due to his studies. He lost his faith because of the problem of suffering. His studies only led him to believe that the bible wasn’t the word of God.
Secondly, Ehrman admits in his book that the bible we have today is very similar to what we think the originals are. The problem is not everyone takes the time to actually read his books. His books actually have sections in them for Christians on how they can *keep* their faith. Ehrman isn’t trying to debunk people’s faith, but rather debunking fundamentalism, which claims the bible is inerrant and 100% accurate.
Thirdly, along the same lines as other commenters, Ehrman does engage with other scholars. He’s debated Craig Evans, who is considered to be one of the top scholars in his field, on at least two occasions.
And lastly, what Ehrman has to say isn’t at all controversial in his line of work and is actually in agreement with most scholars. Most Christian scholars will admit there are errors/inaccuracies in the bible. Even conservative Craig Evens admitted that many things that Jesus said and did in the Gospel of John probably didn’t happen. Another example is E.P. Sanders, who is very well respected, also points out how the birth narratives are irreconcilable (The Historical Figure of Jesus). Other Christians, such as Dale Martin, even use Ehrman’s books to teach their students at some of the best schools in the country.
A lot of people don’t like Ehrman, but he’s just teaching people what’s been known for years. He just happens to write best selling books about it.
Ben, am highlighting a few inaccurate information from your comment here…
1. Ehrman in his first debate with Craig Evans disclosed that his apostasy had nothing to do with the problem of evil and suffering.
2. Ehrman does not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, so your second point contradicts Ehrman’s views.
3. Engaging Craig Evans is indeed noteworthy, however Nick Peters details the names of the best critics that Ehrman does not engage. Please check that out.
4. When Christian scholars admit that there are errors, they do not mean it to be same as how Ehrman means it. If the NT is 99% pure then there are errors worth 1%. However, these errors do not damage the doctrines. This is Craig Evans’ position as well.
E.P Sanders is a non-Christian scholar. Evidently, he would say that.
However, EPS also says that it is possible to know the teachings of Christ Jesus. In fact, EPS has a list of Christ’s core teachings agreed by most scholars.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
1. Interesting. I’d be interested in a source if you have it. In this interview, Ehrman says “…but after many years of being a liberal Christian I finally became an agnostic for reasons unrelated to my scholarship, reason having to do with why there is suffering in the world….” source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeFdhyuVyzI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m9s I believe he has said in this elsewhere as well.
2. Yes, Ehrman does not believe in the infallibility of the bible, which doesn’t have anything to do with the manuscripts. Even if we had the original manuscripts, it doesn’t mean those manuscripts are factually correct.
3. Sure, there’s probably critics that Ehman hasn’t engaged in, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t engaged with noteworthy scholars that have different points of view.
4. Well, Ehman writes on more than just textual criticism. He has a lot of published works on the NT criticism in general. I meant to say that there were historical errors in the bible, rather than errors with textual variants.
1. Source: First debate between BEhrman and Craig Evans.
2. The apparent problem highlighted by Ehrman is the corruption of NT during its transmission. Hence, his denial of infallibility is based on manuscripts. Your statement “Even if we had the original manuscripts, it doesn’t mean those manuscripts are factually correct,” although based on conjecture, contradicts Ehrman’s current opinion about NT, which according to Ehrman is that God failed to preserve the 100% purity of NT’s transmission. This implies that the autographs are pure, is it not?
3. Nick Peters claims that Ehrman does not engage with the best scholars in that relevant field, not that Ehrman does not engage noteworthy scholars.
4. That still does not make Ehrman correct. There is much information authored by Christian scholars in the public domain debunking Ehrman.
I’ve been down this road before and it seems to be always fruitless. I would recommend getting a good book on the Introduction to the NT to learn about mainstream scholarship. Cheers.
Been there and done that, Ben 🙂 Nice chatting though..thanks
Ben – Raj shows no interest in scholarship or integrity – only in pontificating evangelical pap.
Greg
Raj
Your statement – not surprisingly – is totally false. Bart has been repeatedly clear as to why he lost his faith. You are intentionally mis-representing him. This is slander – and it is condemned by the Word of God. Shame on you!!!
Good article. However, your point about avoiding the best scholars is not really true. Ehrman is not shy about discussing and debating with just about anyone. He did not one, but two, debates of an hour apiece with Richard Bauckham on “Unbelievable.” He’s debated WL Craig and others. It’s true that he overstates the seriousness of textual variants, but it is not true that he avoids scholars. Let’s not do what Ehrman does and overstate our case.
Thank you Joe.
With regard to Ehrman engaging with the best critics, I have quoted Nick Peters who does have a valid point. Nick Peters claims that Bart Ehrman does not engage the best critics in the relevant subjects and he even quotes Ehrman’s books and the best critics’. While we commend Ehrman for debating with WLC and the likes, we would also expect him to engage with the best critics in the relevant fields in his books
That makes sense. I have read none of Ehrman’s books, so I don’t know to what extent that he engages with the best critics in his published works. I have listened to many of his debates and interviews, and in those he engages some of the best in the business, including Craig, Bauckham, etc. I have noticed that so many of the atheistic writers are very one-sided in their assessment of the relevant facts when writing. At least Ehrman debates. Dawkins won’t ever face anyone (not since Lennox destroyed him in their pseudo-debate.)
True that, brother 🙂
Hi Joe. Nick Peters here. Yes. This is a great concern I have with Ehrman. In his book on How Jesus Became God, he mentions Hurtado twice, but does not interact with his arguments. Bauckham is not mentioned once and he pretty much glances over the Christianization of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:4-6.
In the section on Jesus’s burial in that chapter, he ignores entirely Jewish scholars of burial at the time of Jesus, including Jodi Magness, who is an expert on that topic and happens to teach at the very university Ehrman teaches at and was hired in fact by Ehrman.
Great points, Nick. When Ehrman speaks (and writes) he gives a one-sided view. Thanks so much for your post. I guess I was giving him credit for his debates without considering the one-sided nature of his writing.