How Bart Ehrman Misframes Discussions Of Jesus' Resurrection

He was recently on Ross Douthat's Interesting Times podcast, and there was some discussion of the historicity of the gospels, the resurrection, and other issues related to Easter. There are too many problems with Ehrman's claims for me to address all of them here, but I want to talk about some of them.

The Ehrman/Licona Debate On Gospel Authorship

Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona recently debated the subject. I listened to the debate while doing something else and didn't take notes, so I'll just be summarizing some points that have come to mind after listening to the debate. Mike had some good things to say, but I want to supplement what he offered.

The Discussion Of Jesus' Birthplace Between Jimmy Akin And Bart Ehrman

I just listened to it live. There's supposed to be a recording available within a few days, but I'll just go by my memory and notes for now.

A Good Discussion Of Psalm 22 And Isaiah 53

Michael Flowers recently recorded a video with Joshua Pearsall about the two passages. They make some good points about the passages and respond to some objections raised by critics (Dan McClellan, Kipp Davis, Tovia Singer, Bart Ehrman).

Michael has also written a good article about Psalm 22:16, which I discussed in an earlier post.

You can find a listing of some of our posts on Messianic prophecy fulfillment, in canonical order, here. And here's a collection of posts on prophecy issues more broadly.

Disproving Luke's Census Wouldn't Disprove The Bethlehem Birthplace

Nor would disproving the star of Bethlehem, the Slaughter of the Innocents, etc. Events like those are relevant to Jesus' place of birth. They can offer evidence pertaining to it. But the truthfulness of his birth in Bethlehem doesn't depend on something like the accuracy of Luke's census account or whether the Slaughter of the Innocents occurred. In his video I responded to in my last post, Bart Ehrman addressed events like the ones I just mentioned while ignoring the large majority of the evidence relevant to where Jesus was born.

Bart Ehrman Is Wrong About Jesus' Birthplace

He just posted a video arguing against the Bethlehem birthplace. There are a lot of problems with his argument:

A Response To Bart Ehrman's Webinar Against The Virgin Birth

It aired at 2:00 P.M. Eastern time today. It consisted of three segments, two presentations that were a little over an hour each and one session of questions and answers that lasted a little under an hour. I saw all of it other than about the first seven minutes of the first presentation, which I missed due to technical problems. The video isn't available for replay yet, but should be later this week. I plan to watch those first seven minutes at that point, then post any further comments that are warranted. But given the small amount of time involved and the nature of the webinar as a whole, I doubt that I missed much in those first several minutes.

When I provide documentation of something said during the webinar, I'll refer to the section involved and the approximate minute within that section. I don't have a video to play back at this point to get more precise numbers. So, "(second presentation, 21:00)" refers to something at roughly 21 minutes into the second presentation, "(questions and answers, 3:00)" refers to something about 3 minutes into the segment with questions and answers, etc.

Bart Ehrman's Upcoming Webinar Against The Virgin Birth

It's going to air on December 10. I plan to watch it, and I'll probably post about it again after doing so, but I want to make some preliminary comments.

I doubt he'll go much beyond the book Andrew Lincoln published on the topic a decade ago. Go here to read my review of Lincoln's work. Everything I've read about Ehrman's webinar to this point suggests that it's going to largely, if not entirely, be a reformulation of Lincoln's approach.

Since I was going to post an article about how to argue for the virgin birth this Christmas season, I'll go ahead and include that material here. After I address that subject, I'll add some further comments about interacting with Ehrman in particular.

Skeptical Inconsistencies On The Historicity Of Christian Sources

"Harnack, Acts, 272: 'The agreement which in these numerous instances exists between the Acts (chaps. i.-xiv.) and the Pauline epistles, although the latter are only incidental writings belonging to the later years of the Apostle, is so extensive and so detailed as to exclude all wild hypotheses concerning those passages of the Acts that are without attestation in those epistles.' The logic is the same as arguments that a source unreliable where it can be checked should be assumed unreliable elsewhere (cf., e.g., Ehrman, Interrupted, 110, on Papias)." (Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume I [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012], n. 120 on 238)

Michael Shermer And Bart Ehrman On Christmas And Christianity

Michael Shermer recently had Bart Ehrman on his YouTube channel. There are too many problems with the comments made by both of them for me to interact with everything. They address a wide range of topics: Jesus' existence, the virgin birth, Trinitarianism, the atonement, the resurrection of Jesus, the problem of evil, etc. But Ehrman was on the program primarily to discuss Christmas issues. He had an online seminar on the subject coming up on December 5, and that was Shermer's main interest. What I want to do in the remainder of this post is respond to some of their comments about Christmas and prophecy fulfillment.

The Historicity Of Jesus' Burial And Empty Tomb

Mike Winger recently posted a video that makes some good points about the historicity of the account of Jesus' burial in Mark's gospel.

Though the empty tomb is a different issue than the burial of Jesus, some of the information we have about the former has implications for the latter. Regarding the evidence outside the gospels and Acts, see here. On the letters of Peter in particular, see here. And here's something I wrote on Justin Martyr a few years ago, including his citation of a first-century Jewish source acknowledging the empty tomb. In another post, I discussed some of the cumulative effects of the evidence.

Materialism and mysteries

Prof. James Anderson responds to Bart Ehrman's (I guess one could call it) mysterian materialism in his post "Materialism and Mysteries".

Ehrman’s Objections to the Women’s Discovery of the Empty Tomb

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/ehrmans-objections-to-the-womens-discovery-of-the-empty-tomb

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

Some critics say the Gospels give contradictory accounts of Christ's last words on the cross. A few observations:

i) On the face of it, this allegation is just a fallacy. It confuses the last words recorded by the narrator with the last words of the speaker. It isn't necessarily or even presumptively the last thing the speaker said, but the last thing the narrator quoted the speaker saying. That's where the narrator ends his account. 

ii) To take some comparisons: suppose I speak to a friend who died in a traffic accident the next day. I remember his last words to me. I can quote his final words to me. But it's unlikely that those are the last words he ever spoke.

Or suppose loved one is dying in a hospital. His bed is surrounded by family and friends. One of them has to leave. They remember the last thing they heard him say before they stepped out of the room. That's something they quote him saying, but it's probably not the last thing he said before he died.

Or take the "wit and wisdom" books of a celebrity. They may arrange quotes chronologically from his writings. But the last quoted statement is unlikely to be the last thing he said before he died. The book is selective to begin with. It may be his last public statement. Or his last wittism.

iii) Keep in mind that according to traditional authorship, only John was present at the crucifixion. Possibly Mark. But the other disciples had fled. Matthew and Luke probably got their information from the women at the cross. 

There's a distinction between the last thing they record Jesus saying and the last thing he said. The former doesn't entail the latter. It tells you when the narrator stopped quoting, not when the speaker stopped talking. That's where the narrator decided to wrap up his account of the Crucifixion. Maybe because he had no more information about what was said and done. 

Other than John, the Synoptics might well not know the original order of what Jesus said on the cross, if they depend on the women for their information. It would also depend on which women they consulted. For that matter, the women might not remember the original order. You don't know ahead of time if what they say the last thing they will ever say. You might expect more. 

vi) Bart Ehrman makes a big deal about mood shifts. Needless to say, someone in agonizing pain is prone to sudden mood swings. They may oscillate in and out of consciousness and lucidity. They may have moments of euphoria. They may slip back into despondency. This is realistic. 

Why didn't God preserve the originals?

@RandalRauserQuestion for inerrantists: If God would assure that his revealed text would be without error, why wouldn't he ensure either that subsequent copies of that texts would be without error and/or that the original copies (autographa) of the texts would be preserved through all time?

Oh Gosh. Progressive theologian reheating Ehrman's stale objection to inerrancy. Pity the fried maggots when Rauser pops his rotten meat into the microwave. 

1. The question is ironic because, even though Rauser thinks the Bible teaches moral and factual falsehoods, he pretends to believe in Biblical inerrancy. He has an "appropriation" model of inspiration which drives a wedge between God's intentions and the intentions of the Bible writers. He treats the books of the Bible as a collection of error-ridden writings, but the collection is "inspired" and "inerrant" because it somehow serves God's overarching purpose. So Rauser's objection to inerrancy, which he camouflages as a question, contradicts his "cross my fingers behind my back" affirmation of inerrancy. 

2. It's a speculative question, so only speculative answers are available. A plausible reason God didn't preserve the originals is because they'd become trophies in the cult of relicts. Religious wars would be fought to keep or capture the originals. They'd be venerated with superstitious awe as talismans.

3. As for why inerrancy doesn't extend to copies, God made a kind of world where there's an interplay between natural and supernatural factors, miracle and providence. On the one hand, everything that happens is not a continuous series of miracles. On the other hand, everything that happens is not closed continuum. The physical world operates much like a machine. But natural processes can be circumvented by spiritual agency. 

If, on the one hand, if every event was a miracle, life would have no stability or predictability. Life would have no continuity. Human experience would be radically disjointed. There'd be no presumption that the same antecedent conditions yield the same outcome. Any kind of future could fork off from the same past–at any time, all the time. That would be literally nightmarish. Scenes abruptly and constantly changing. 

On the other hand, we're not trapped in a clockwork universe where prayer can't reach. The machinery has a manual override. Spiritual agents or agents with spiritual power can bypass physical cause and effect. God struck a balance between a closed system and chaos. 

4. Regarding the textual transmission of the Bible, God hasn't done more than is necessary. Inerrant copies are inessential to preserve the message. For one thing, biblical teaching is redundant. It doesn't teeter on a particular reading of a particular verse. 

In addition, most scribal errors are trivial, recognizable, and correctible. If natural ability will suffice, then supernatural empowerment is unnecessary. 

5. In theory, God could use direct, private revelation for every individual. But human beings are social creatures by divine design. The Christian faith has a corporate life in the fellowship of the church. Having a public revelation as a common a frame of reference unites Christians. Yes, there's a sense in which the Bible can be theologically divisive, but even then we disagree about the same thing. We share a common struggle. We debate each other. We're not cubicle people.

The right way to debate Bart Ehrman

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Unbelievable-blog/The-Right-Way-to-Debate-Bart-Ehrman

Verisimilitude

I'd like to expand on something I said about the recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Peter Williams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZPPGvF_2I

1. For many years, Ehrman's stock argument against the reliability of the Gospels has been his contention that they were authored by anonymous writers decades after the events who never lived in Palestine. But in the debate he suddenly shifted grounds. He said that even if they had accurate background knowledge of 1C Palestine, that creates no presumption that the accounts of Jesus are accurate. 

2. To begin with, I don't know what Ehrman is claiming. Is he claiming that the Gospels are intentionally historical, but the writers are simply clueless about the historical Jesus, despite their intentions to write an accurate biography? If so, why would their sources be accurate about little background details but wrong about the main events? Why would their sources preserve accurate background information but be unreliable about the main events?

3. Apropos (3), it's unclear on Ehrman's reckoning how we could ever credit any ancient historical account. If incidental accuracy in details doesn't count as evidence for the general accuracy of the stories, then how, if at all, does Ehrman distinguish between legend and history? Doesn't his skepticism apply with equal force to Thucydides, Julius Caesar, Tacitus, and Josephus (to name a few)? Isn't the kind of corroborative evidence Williams marshals in Can We Trust the Gospels the same kind of evidence historians use to verify ancient accounts generally?

4. For that matter, if he's that skeptical about ancient records, then he can't say the chronology in Lk 2 is mistaken, since he'd have to have confidence in other historical sources to use them as a standard of comparison. 

5. Or is he claiming that the Gospels are intentionally fictional, but the Gospel writers sprinkled their stories with accurate background information to lend the stories verisimilitude? If that's what he's angling at, then one problem with his objection is that what he says about the authors is applicable to the audience. Verisimilitude is only effective if the reader is in a position to recognize the accuracy of the details. If, however, the Gospels were written decades after the fact by authors who never lived in Palestine, or knew people who did, then wouldn't the target audience for the Gospels be in the same boat? The audience would be just as uninformed as the authors. So how would they be in a position to appreciate verisimilitude? Wouldn't accurate background information be lost on them? 

6. As I mentioned before, it would dangerous to be a Christian back then. Why would the Gospel authors risk writing fiction that was so hazardous to their life and livelihood? If, on the other hand, they were writing historical biographies, then it would be worth the risk, given who Jesus is. 

7. Ehrman kept defaulting to memory studies. But in his recent book, Christobiography, Craig Keener devotes a whole chapter to that issue (chap. 14). Likewise, Richard Bauckham's article: “The Psychology of Memory and the Study of the Gospels. ”Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16 (2018) 1-21.

Winger on death of Judas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNtn376_ea4

Right setting, wrong story

 I'd like to revisit one issue in the recent Ehrman/Williams debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZPPGvF_2I

Ehrman dismissed the copious evidence provided by Williams on the grounds that even if the background information in the Gospels is accurate, that has no bearing on whether the accounts of Jesus are accurate. For instance, a columnist can get the background details right on a story but get the story wrong. 

But there are some basic problems with that objection:

i) For many years, Ehrman's schtick has been to claim that the Gospels are unreliable because they were written by anonymous authors decades after the fact who never lived in Palestine, weren't eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, and knew no eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.

Now, however, Ehrman does an about-face. Williams marshals multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate that the Gospel authors either lived in Palestine or interviewed people who did. 

So where does that leave Ehrman's original argument that the Gospel authors were out of touch with the facts on the ground? That they were too far-removed from the time and place to be in a position to accurately report what happened? Having lost the first football game, he moves the goalpost under cover of darkness to help his team for the rematch. 

ii) Sure, it's possible for an eyewitness to willfully misrepresent what happened. But that's a drastic shift from the argument Ehrman has been hawking for years. 

And there are problems with the new argument. If the Gospel authors were in a position to know what happened, why would they misrepresent events when they had so much on the line? It was very risky to be a Christian back them. 

iii) In addition, Jesus has a polarizing effect on people. If, say, you witnessed him perform exorcisms or nature miracles, you're forced to draw some conclusions. You're forced to take sides. On the one hand, his enemies admitted that he did those things. They heard what he said and saw what he did, right before their eyes. So they couldn't remain neutral. They attributed his supernatural abilities to witchcraft. 

But what would motivate the Gospel authors to misrepresent Jesus favorably if they knew what he did, even from their own firsthand observation or the eyewitness testimony of their informants? 

iv) Ehrman posits that the sources for the Gospels passed by word-of-mouth through many links before the authors wrote down the latest oral traditions. But there's no presumption that that's the case.

If, however, traditional authorship is correct–and Williams provides some direct evidence as well as alluding to other evidence–then Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. For that matter, Mark was probably an eyewitness. He's a younger contemporary of Jesus living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's public ministry.  

Moreover, there's no presumption that Luke's sources involve a chain of transmission. He could easily interview eyewitnesses to the life of Christ. Many were still alive at the time he conducted his investigations. So there's no justification to stipulate a series of intervening links. The same holds true if Matthew, Mark, or John supplement their firsthand observation with testimony from other informants. The same holds true even if Matthew, Mark, and John weren't eyewitnesses. 

"Ehrman's Equivocation and the Inerrancy of the Original Text"

By Peter J. Williams

The idea of an inerrant or even an infallible original text of Scripture has been a matter of wide controversy. In part such controversy has merely reflected fundamental divisions over the nature of Scripture, its historical reliability, and the extent and essence of its authority. However, it is the contention here that the controversy has partly been complicated by the multivalence of key terms being used by advocates of inerrancy. This means that, while advocates of inerrancy are carefully presenting nuanced arguments that are exegetically well grounded and logically compelling, there are stumbling blocks to their message other than the sheer offensiveness of a doctrine of inerrancy. Advocates of inerrancy need to adopt clearer terminology to ensure that the doctrine is correctly understood at the popular level. In addition, this essay argues that the burden of proof should be on those who distrust the basic integrity of the New Testament text. The work of Bart D. Ehrman is used to illustrate the problems that can arise through terminological confusion and when the burden of proof is wrongly shifted onto those who maintain the basic integrity of the New Testament text.