Just an extra aside, As Bart has explained himself multiple times, it was the "problem of evil" that eventually drove him to stop being convinced of the existence of god. Interestingly, his scholarship drove him to stop being a conservative/inerrantist believer, but wasnt the main driver of his deconversion. Meanwhile, many readers of his work tend to find it difficult to hold the position of their current evangelical faith while digesting his content. Not everyone has the ability to grapple with the cognitive dissonance his work tends to evoke in believers that hold to inerrancy and univocality.
Agreed. I can certainly see how many Christians (including myself) can read and accept his conclusions. But I don't see how evangelicals can. However, I honestly don't see how they can maintain a belief that the bible is without error even without Ehrman.
You seem to be confusing "digesting his content" with "agreeing with his conclusions". It's entirely possible for somebody to read Ehrman's books, digest their content, and completely disagree with him. Though given that his popular level books rarely engage with a steelman version of conservative scholarship you'd probably have to be familiar with the other side of the issue before reading them to do that.
@@stephengray1344 I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone needs to accept his conclusion. There are plenty of scholars out there who do not. My comment above was meant to say, I think that Christians should be able to accept academic scholarship. Evangelicals don't have that option. If they ever do come to feel that the weight of historical evidence challenges their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, they can't accept it (Definitionally, that is. If they do, they cease to be an evangelical).
@stephengray1344 I'm more saying if one finds themselves having the same conclusion through Bart's trade books or academic work, then they ultimately have to grapple with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that comes with having to accept one conclusion and put away another conclusion they've maybe held all their lives. Challenging one's concreted world veiw is no simple task.
@@brandonrunyon In some cases, yes. However, I think the thing that made Bart so popular was that so many people who were brought up with conservative beliefs were finding them untenable. They were ready to challenge them but didn't have the words or knowledge. I find this often leads to the other extreme, i.e., people who were so relieved to find Bart (and some who look at him as something of a savior), that now everything he says is taken as gospel.
14:29 - 14:44 Sorry but this is not a mere "bias" - this is an axiom which is contrary to the scientific methods of discerning scientific truth. A choice between two equal possibilities according to the word of the Bible can be a bias. Starting from the word of the Bible as a scientist is not a bias: It's a distortion. It's like using a scientific title to give credibility to your faith or your personal obsessions. All scientists are biased to one direction or another. A doctor that would prescribe "a little wine for your stomach" though, just because it is written in 1 Timothy 5:23 and "Bible can't be wrong", is not just a biased physician: He is a dangerous man.
8:40 This is what makes Bart's debates so frustrating for me. It would be great if his opponents wouldn't ultimately back up their arguments with Christian faith which, as an agnostic from a Buddhist/Shintoist culture, I can't relate to on practically any level.
Perhaps you have made this point elsewhere, but it is also important to understand what text criticism is as well as what it is not. Text criticism is the process of studying manuscript evidence and trying to figure out what is most likely the most accurate and closest to the original. In other words: determining what the text actually, authentically is. Too many evangelicals think that scholars like Bart Ehrman are trying to "debunk the Bible" while too many athiests think that they have. That isn't their game.
Exactly. Yes, I have a video on textual criticism, but no, I don’t think I make the point in it about how it is an academic field, not a religious one. Well put!
24 дня назад
There's an inherent conflict between critical analysis of the Bible and the belief that it is divinely inspired.
On number 3, it doesn't seem valid to say that it's not hard to imagine that Bart would choose the alternative most against evangelical Christianity, particularly after mentioning the awareness of bias which good historians recognize. It is always important to be aware of that possibility, whoever we're listening to. The tricky part is knowing enough about the subject being discussed to be able to recognize such an occurrence, no mean feat when it's an accomplished historian, rather than having to take one side or the other's word for it. A choice often influenced by our own biases.
@@blueglassdave I agree and wasn’t sure if I should include the point or not. However, it IS something that I try to keep in mind with all historians, so I figured I’d include it. I do find Ehrman to be one of the most honest, but I do think there are times he shows his bias.
Not exactly sure what you are revealing here? Ehrman talks about his background extensively, and it's hard to imagine that anyone reading his books would be surprised that he is a historian taking a critical look at textual sources. It's not like he's hiding anything. What are you telling us?
@@ReasonOrDogma I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t claim that he’s hiding anything or that there is anything to be “revealed.” I do disagree with you that all people reading him know what critical scholarship is and how to evaluate it.
@@vinceendris Sorry. Your title "Things to remember when reading Ehrman" made it sound like you were going to reveal something important and unique about reading Ehrman. What you actually talk about is something more along the lines of "how to approach a work of scholarship," which perhaps may be useful in its own right.
@@ReasonOrDogma No Prob. In my opinion, when I hear people talking about Bart, it seems that they either hate him (because they think he is attacking Christianity and they love Christianity) or that they worship him (because they think he's attacking Christianity and they hate Christianity). I like to do book summaries on my channel and before doing one on "How Jesus Became God" I wanted to make a video that I thought might address both of these.
Bart Ehrman *was raised* as a fairly generic *Episcopalian.* He had an Evangelical "awakening" (or whatever you call it) in his late teens and had his "fundamentalist" phase from there. Aside from that ... good job. 🤓
Hey, thanks for the clarification. I gathered that he was raised an evangelical Episcopalian. This was always funny to me since, growing up, I thought all evangelicals were Southern Baptist.
I don't see Bart as being radical. I just think he is trying to be honest to the text. I agree that I think there is sufficient evidence that we should take mysticism seriously, but I think some of the more far out views just say thing that will generate a large audience, but have little evidence.
James White has always been an insufferable apologist. Has a fake degree too. I remember Habermas as a fringe apologist 20 years ago because he believed the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Most evangelicals and apologists at the time distance themselves from the shroud and Habermas. And I find the minimal facts theory by Habermas to be question begging, and illogical in that the resurrection cannot follow from the "facts". Also, I enjoy reading Ehrman's popular books as they're more approachable. Before he started writing popular books, I had to read his dense academic work like the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. BTW, when I started reading about the history of Jesus and Christianity I considered Ehrman a little too "conservative". I had been reading books by the Jesus Seminar people like Funk, Crossan, and Mack; and they are a lot less generous about the historicity of Jesus' words and deeds. Now I see Ehrman as "middle of the road".
I didn't know that about Habermas. Thanks. I saw an interview where Jimmy Akin said that White must have really ticked off Ehrman during their debate because Ehrman went after him and made him look like an absolute idiot. I got ticked off at the debate because I find Ehrman to be such a nice guy, and White was such a jerk. I think you're right about Ehrman being on the conservative side when it comes to history. When it comes to theology, I prefer Crossan and Borg. When it comes to history, I'm a Dale Allison/Ehrman fan.
I think so. I do. In fact, everyone I know who grew up evangelical but learned their way out of hold some resentment to it. But I don't think I ever said grudge. My opinion is that he has a bias against traditional Christian thought. It could be that he, like most of us, just likes to be known as an independent thinker.
Bart is brilliant, but he contradicts himself constantly. I've heard him say, " Jesus was a nobody. They left his body on the cross, and the dogs ate it". Then he'll tell you about Josephus mentioning Jesus and John and James. Was he a nobody, or was he important enough for Josephus to mention?
When you say that Ehrman is an historian that's slightly misleading. His academic background and training is in text criticism, rather than in history. So when he writes popular level history books he's actually stepping outside of his academic specialty. He's still a popular historian, but it's not clear that he can accurately be described as an academic one. Also your closing comment pitting evangelicals against historians (as if there aren't plenty of people who are both) gives the impression of a substantial bias on your part.
I don't necessarily disagree with your first point. However, in his trade books, he is not really saying anything new. He is just summarizing scholarship. My only disagreement would be that one of the big thing about his "orthodox corruption" was the it bridged the gap between text criticism and history that had previously existed. Yes, I'm biased against evangelical thought. However, I think I can justify my claim. In my view, historians, much like scientists, have a set of agreed upon methodologies that have been developed over centuries. I consider an historian to be one that sticks to those methodologies, or explains logically why they are not. Evangelicals (much like pseudoscientists) add an ad hoc rule, i.e., the bible is correct in all it says. However, point taken.
@@vinceendris He's summarising one side of scholarship. But almost entirely ignoring the other side. Which isn't uncommon in people who write for a popular audience. But is still something that needs to be borne in mind when reading him. And I'm not entirely convinced that scholarship on Biblical history follows the same methodology that is used in other historical fields. Crtitical scholarship typically treats the Biblical texts with far greater levels of scepticism than most fields treat their historical sources. Ehrman is also a prominent example of another issue that is present in some parts of scholarship. His oft-stated view that it's invalid to harmonise the gospel accounts because they are trying to say different things is essentially rejecting the historical method (trying to reconstruct events and their causes by looking at the claims made by all of our historical sources) in favour of literary criticism (trying to determine the meaning intended in an individual text). Yes, some Evangelical scholars let their view on inerrancy affect their historical work too much. But for most of them its impact isn't any different from the ideological lenses and other biases that every historian brings to their work.
@ I think I mentioned that in my point 4 - that writing trade books allows him to neglect other scholarship. Basically, keep in mind that there is always a competing argument. I can agree that when it comes to biblical studies, the biases will be much stronger on both sides due to the sensitivity of the subject. Also, you are probably right that not all evangelical historians are overly affected by their inerrancy beliefs when it comes to their work in history. I just personally (no doubt due to my own biases) have a problem reading them because I disagree with their starting point and find myself always questioning just how “tainted” their conclusions are.
Ehrman is a BS artist. He's not a historian or a scholar. He's a malcontent who attacks Christianity with ruthless mendacity. Case in point, he claims Jesus Christ never claimed to be God. John 14:9 "“Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?" ... John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM" ... Revelation 1:8; 21:6 As the Alpha and Omega, Jesus existed before creation and was with God in the beginning John 1:1. He is, therefore, eternal.
Thank you for your comment, but I'm a Christian minister, and I don't believe he attacks Christianity at all. Like all historians, he questions the sources. Therefore, the fact that John says Jesus says something doesn't mean Jesus said something. That is a theological claim.
Just a correction Bart was referring to the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark,Luke) not John(in which your quoting scriptures from)and he gives the reasons why in his book How Jesus became God. Attack the argument not the person because if u bothered to research his claim that Jesus HIMSELF didn't say he was God in the synoptic gospels you would of found out he was right.
@@jasonleslie4349 Jason Leslie you're dead WRONG. Ehrman attacks Christianity head on by denying it's reason for existing. The central truth Christians know, is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Before Abraham lived I AM lived. Before the world existed Jesus knew us. The high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy because Jesus said, "And you will see the Son of Man (which Jesus called himself) seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven." ... Everyone will see this. Every knee will genuflect to Jesus, who will come on the clouds of Heaven in triumph and glory. Christ also said "I and the Father are one. Anyone who's seen me has seen the Father. How can you say 'show us the Father?" ... You're defending an apostate who is dedicated to scattering Jesus's flock. You can read all his lies and books and believe Ehrman's twisted logic if you like. You're a badly confused individual.
@bobgarrett7134 Sorry but where does he say 'I am God?'Matt26:64 and Mark14:62 did he refer to himself as the"Son of Man?"Did he say explicitly I am the SON of Man? The 1st 3 gospels are written before the gospel of John and nowhere do the 3 say anything to Jesussaying HIMSELF I A M G O D only when John is written he does this.Why?Wouldn't that be the most important thing to mention? Yet the 1st 3 gospels don't until John.Look, we can have a difference of opinion about him. And I understand that he is not a popular guy in christain circles. But if you are a christain calling him a BS artist doesn't sound Christlike aren't you suppose to 'love your enemies'','...turn the other cheek?'
@@jasonleslie4349 Why do you continuously insult God and Jesus Christ? Jesus obviously referred to himself as the Son of Man. Matt 8: 20 And Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" Matthew is not John. Jesus Christ didn't need to say "I AM GOD" for readers of the scriptures to understand that Jesus is claiming to be God. As doubting Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and my God." Now, in Romans 9:5, Paul writes "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." As you know, Paul is not John. Do you not believe anything in the Bible? Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and tear you to shreds" ... "Do not cast your pearls before swine" ... This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It means that Christians should not be hypocritical judges, but should be able to discern who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel -- specifically talking about con artists like Ehrman, who are bent on turning people away from God.
I would question whether Ehrman should be considered a historian. I majored in history as an undergraduate and we were taught to rely on primary source material. Modern biblical criticism, however, usually tries to discount the primary sources (in this case, the four gospels in the New Testament), and instead tries to come up with an alternative scenario based largely on speculation and conjecture.
You majored in history? Which college taught you that you should rely on stories of miracles in ancient documents and literature? Historians do not do that. If you read the synoptics honestly, you will immediately become aware that they are loaded with apologetics for the converted and those they hope to convert. It is marketing propaganda and polemics against Jews that would not convert. It is us vs. them. It is carrots and sticks. It is 1000% propagandic bullshit by propagandist that were doing what they could to get their cult into the mainstream in a marketplace of competing philosophies, ideologies, superstitions, legends, wives tales. They were competing in the religious marketplace of their era. Their savior was embellished to be the biggest and baddest savior ever. He could do it all and then some. Jesus had to be made superior to all the other demigods as well as the heroes of the Hebrew ancient literature like Adam, Abraham, Moses, King David, John the Baptist, Joseph, Daniel... Jesus could do all their miracles and die for sins. How could anyone refuse the offer? It is a win, win unless you think reality should matter. Then you see it is all just fantasy, wishful thinking, and a way to herd people into an effective useful sacred belief systemused to combat cultures with other religious belief systems, usually for land, resources, or access to consumer markets for their domestic corporations.
I'm not sure how much Ehrman you have read, but his arguments come mostly form his reading of the gospels and other sources around at the time. In fact, as I mentioned in the video, in his trade books he rarely quotes other scholars (secondary sources). The differences between him and, say, Crossan, Wright, or Allison is their methodology in using the gospels.
Quite ironic when he primarily uses the gospels to highlight his points. Before dismissing him as a historian check his credentials out I think you might change your mind
Christianity is not a topic, it's a reality. Have you ever prayed? Did God answer your prayer? No matter how bulletproof any argument might be, if you have ever prayed and seen God's work then there's no way to reconcile the intellect no matter how wayward it might be with faith that has been confirmed by God himself.
The best evidence against God is the diversity of Christian faiths and all the other religions. God doesn't care about our interpretations of his teachings or whether one believes the actual resurrection occurred vs. spiritual or metaphorical... or more likely, Christianity's borrowed Jewish conceived tribal God is just as much a human invention as all the other gods, before or since.
Just an extra aside, As Bart has explained himself multiple times, it was the "problem of evil" that eventually drove him to stop being convinced of the existence of god. Interestingly, his scholarship drove him to stop being a conservative/inerrantist believer, but wasnt the main driver of his deconversion. Meanwhile, many readers of his work tend to find it difficult to hold the position of their current evangelical faith while digesting his content. Not everyone has the ability to grapple with the cognitive dissonance his work tends to evoke in believers that hold to inerrancy and univocality.
Agreed. I can certainly see how many Christians (including myself) can read and accept his conclusions. But I don't see how evangelicals can. However, I honestly don't see how they can maintain a belief that the bible is without error even without Ehrman.
You seem to be confusing "digesting his content" with "agreeing with his conclusions". It's entirely possible for somebody to read Ehrman's books, digest their content, and completely disagree with him. Though given that his popular level books rarely engage with a steelman version of conservative scholarship you'd probably have to be familiar with the other side of the issue before reading them to do that.
@@stephengray1344 I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone needs to accept his conclusion. There are plenty of scholars out there who do not.
My comment above was meant to say, I think that Christians should be able to accept academic scholarship. Evangelicals don't have that option. If they ever do come to feel that the weight of historical evidence challenges their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, they can't accept it (Definitionally, that is. If they do, they cease to be an evangelical).
@stephengray1344 I'm more saying if one finds themselves having the same conclusion through Bart's trade books or academic work, then they ultimately have to grapple with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that comes with having to accept one conclusion and put away another conclusion they've maybe held all their lives. Challenging one's concreted world veiw is no simple task.
@@brandonrunyon In some cases, yes. However, I think the thing that made Bart so popular was that so many people who were brought up with conservative beliefs were finding them untenable. They were ready to challenge them but didn't have the words or knowledge. I find this often leads to the other extreme, i.e., people who were so relieved to find Bart (and some who look at him as something of a savior), that now everything he says is taken as gospel.
14:29 - 14:44 Sorry but this is not a mere "bias" - this is an axiom which is contrary to the scientific methods of discerning scientific truth.
A choice between two equal possibilities according to the word of the Bible can be a bias. Starting from the word of the Bible as a scientist is not a bias: It's a distortion. It's like using a scientific title to give credibility to your faith or your personal obsessions.
All scientists are biased to one direction or another. A doctor that would prescribe "a little wine for your stomach" though, just because it is written in 1 Timothy 5:23 and "Bible can't be wrong", is not just a biased physician: He is a dangerous man.
Fair point. I'm certainly not going to argue against that. ha
8:40 This is what makes Bart's debates so frustrating for me. It would be great if his opponents wouldn't ultimately back up their arguments with Christian faith which, as an agnostic from a Buddhist/Shintoist culture, I can't relate to on practically any level.
@@lazykbys agreed!
Agree ❤ Bart is great and he is one historician of early Christianity among many. There are just too many fundamentalists who won’t act in good faith
Agreed! I think some of them (like Michael Bird) could be really good if they would just admit there biases, and go from there.
Perhaps you have made this point elsewhere, but it is also important to understand what text criticism is as well as what it is not. Text criticism is the process of studying manuscript evidence and trying to figure out what is most likely the most accurate and closest to the original. In other words: determining what the text actually, authentically is.
Too many evangelicals think that scholars like Bart Ehrman are trying to "debunk the Bible" while too many athiests think that they have. That isn't their game.
Exactly. Yes, I have a video on textual criticism, but no, I don’t think I make the point in it about how it is an academic field, not a religious one. Well put!
There's an inherent conflict between critical analysis of the Bible and the belief that it is divinely inspired.
No there is not.
@@byrondickens lol yes there is. a divinely inspired text is not subject to criticism.
Superstitious idolatry
On number 3, it doesn't seem valid to say that it's not hard to imagine that Bart would choose the alternative most against evangelical Christianity, particularly after mentioning the awareness of bias which good historians recognize. It is always important to be aware of that possibility, whoever we're listening to. The tricky part is knowing enough about the subject being discussed to be able to recognize such an occurrence, no mean feat when it's an accomplished historian, rather than having to take one side or the other's word for it. A choice often influenced by our own biases.
@@blueglassdave I agree and wasn’t sure if I should include the point or not. However, it IS something that I try to keep in mind with all historians, so I figured I’d include it. I do find Ehrman to be one of the most honest, but I do think there are times he shows his bias.
#4 shocked me!
ha ha! Great, I did it!
Not exactly sure what you are revealing here? Ehrman talks about his background extensively, and it's hard to imagine that anyone reading his books would be surprised that he is a historian taking a critical look at textual sources. It's not like he's hiding anything. What are you telling us?
@@ReasonOrDogma I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t claim that he’s hiding anything or that there is anything to be “revealed.” I do disagree with you that all people reading him know what critical scholarship is and how to evaluate it.
@@vinceendris Sorry. Your title "Things to remember when reading Ehrman" made it sound like you were going to reveal something important and unique about reading Ehrman. What you actually talk about is something more along the lines of "how to approach a work of scholarship," which perhaps may be useful in its own right.
@@ReasonOrDogma No Prob. In my opinion, when I hear people talking about Bart, it seems that they either hate him (because they think he is attacking Christianity and they love Christianity) or that they worship him (because they think he's attacking Christianity and they hate Christianity). I like to do book summaries on my channel and before doing one on "How Jesus Became God" I wanted to make a video that I thought might address both of these.
Great commentary.
Thank you so much!
Bart Ehrman *was raised* as a fairly generic *Episcopalian.*
He had an Evangelical "awakening" (or whatever you call it) in his late teens and had his "fundamentalist" phase from there.
Aside from that ... good job. 🤓
Hey, thanks for the clarification. I gathered that he was raised an evangelical Episcopalian. This was always funny to me since, growing up, I thought all evangelicals were Southern Baptist.
@@vinceendris I think evangelizing is against Episcopalians' religion. 😏😀
@ 🤣
I personally think Bart is not radical enough. Im more in the realms of Ammon Hillman or Carl Ruck
I don't see Bart as being radical. I just think he is trying to be honest to the text. I agree that I think there is sufficient evidence that we should take mysticism seriously, but I think some of the more far out views just say thing that will generate a large audience, but have little evidence.
James White has always been an insufferable apologist. Has a fake degree too.
I remember Habermas as a fringe apologist 20 years ago because he believed the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Most evangelicals and apologists at the time distance themselves from the shroud and Habermas. And I find the minimal facts theory by Habermas to be question begging, and illogical in that the resurrection cannot follow from the "facts".
Also, I enjoy reading Ehrman's popular books as they're more approachable. Before he started writing popular books, I had to read his dense academic work like the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
BTW, when I started reading about the history of Jesus and Christianity I considered Ehrman a little too "conservative". I had been reading books by the Jesus Seminar people like Funk, Crossan, and Mack; and they are a lot less generous about the historicity of Jesus' words and deeds. Now I see Ehrman as "middle of the road".
Yes. That's true, indeed.
More like ~ J A M E S ~ W R O N G ~
I didn't know that about Habermas. Thanks.
I saw an interview where Jimmy Akin said that White must have really ticked off Ehrman during their debate because Ehrman went after him and made him look like an absolute idiot. I got ticked off at the debate because I find Ehrman to be such a nice guy, and White was such a jerk.
I think you're right about Ehrman being on the conservative side when it comes to history. When it comes to theology, I prefer Crossan and Borg. When it comes to history, I'm a Dale Allison/Ehrman fan.
Haha. I see what you did there Greyz.
The playlist Paulogia has about Habermas is brutal.
Wow, 146 subscribers. Bart holds a "grudge" against his former beliefs?
I think so. I do. In fact, everyone I know who grew up evangelical but learned their way out of hold some resentment to it. But I don't think I ever said grudge. My opinion is that he has a bias against traditional Christian thought. It could be that he, like most of us, just likes to be known as an independent thinker.
Bart is brilliant, but he contradicts himself constantly. I've heard him say, " Jesus was a nobody. They left his body on the cross, and the dogs ate it". Then he'll tell you about Josephus mentioning Jesus and John and James. Was he a nobody, or was he important enough for Josephus to mention?
#3 Failure
Well, he tries.
When you say that Ehrman is an historian that's slightly misleading. His academic background and training is in text criticism, rather than in history. So when he writes popular level history books he's actually stepping outside of his academic specialty. He's still a popular historian, but it's not clear that he can accurately be described as an academic one.
Also your closing comment pitting evangelicals against historians (as if there aren't plenty of people who are both) gives the impression of a substantial bias on your part.
I don't necessarily disagree with your first point. However, in his trade books, he is not really saying anything new. He is just summarizing scholarship. My only disagreement would be that one of the big thing about his "orthodox corruption" was the it bridged the gap between text criticism and history that had previously existed.
Yes, I'm biased against evangelical thought. However, I think I can justify my claim. In my view, historians, much like scientists, have a set of agreed upon methodologies that have been developed over centuries. I consider an historian to be one that sticks to those methodologies, or explains logically why they are not. Evangelicals (much like pseudoscientists) add an ad hoc rule, i.e., the bible is correct in all it says.
However, point taken.
@@vinceendris He's summarising one side of scholarship. But almost entirely ignoring the other side. Which isn't uncommon in people who write for a popular audience. But is still something that needs to be borne in mind when reading him.
And I'm not entirely convinced that scholarship on Biblical history follows the same methodology that is used in other historical fields. Crtitical scholarship typically treats the Biblical texts with far greater levels of scepticism than most fields treat their historical sources. Ehrman is also a prominent example of another issue that is present in some parts of scholarship. His oft-stated view that it's invalid to harmonise the gospel accounts because they are trying to say different things is essentially rejecting the historical method (trying to reconstruct events and their causes by looking at the claims made by all of our historical sources) in favour of literary criticism (trying to determine the meaning intended in an individual text).
Yes, some Evangelical scholars let their view on inerrancy affect their historical work too much. But for most of them its impact isn't any different from the ideological lenses and other biases that every historian brings to their work.
@ I think I mentioned that in my point 4 - that writing trade books allows him to neglect other scholarship. Basically, keep in mind that there is always a competing argument.
I can agree that when it comes to biblical studies, the biases will be much stronger on both sides due to the sensitivity of the subject.
Also, you are probably right that not all evangelical historians are overly affected by their inerrancy beliefs when it comes to their work in history. I just personally (no doubt due to my own biases) have a problem reading them because I disagree with their starting point and find myself always questioning just how “tainted” their conclusions are.
Ehrman is a BS artist. He's not a historian or a scholar. He's a malcontent who attacks Christianity with ruthless mendacity. Case in point, he claims Jesus Christ never claimed to be God. John 14:9 "“Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?" ... John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM" ... Revelation 1:8; 21:6 As the Alpha and Omega, Jesus existed before creation and was with God in the beginning John 1:1. He is, therefore, eternal.
Thank you for your comment, but I'm a Christian minister, and I don't believe he attacks Christianity at all. Like all historians, he questions the sources. Therefore, the fact that John says Jesus says something doesn't mean Jesus said something. That is a theological claim.
Just a correction Bart was referring to the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark,Luke) not John(in which your quoting scriptures from)and he gives the reasons why in his book How Jesus became God. Attack the argument not the person because if u bothered to research his claim that Jesus HIMSELF didn't say he was God in the synoptic gospels you would of found out he was right.
@@jasonleslie4349 Jason Leslie you're dead WRONG. Ehrman attacks Christianity head on by denying it's reason for existing. The central truth Christians know, is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Before Abraham lived I AM lived. Before the world existed Jesus knew us. The high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy because Jesus said, "And you will see the Son of Man (which Jesus called himself) seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven." ... Everyone will see this. Every knee will genuflect to Jesus, who will come on the clouds of Heaven in triumph and glory. Christ also said "I and the Father are one. Anyone who's seen me has seen the Father. How can you say 'show us the Father?" ... You're defending an apostate who is dedicated to scattering Jesus's flock. You can read all his lies and books and believe Ehrman's twisted logic if you like. You're a badly confused individual.
@bobgarrett7134 Sorry but where does he say 'I am God?'Matt26:64 and Mark14:62 did he refer to himself as the"Son of Man?"Did he say explicitly I am the SON of Man? The 1st 3 gospels are written before the gospel of John and nowhere do the 3 say anything to Jesussaying HIMSELF I A M G O D only when John is written he does this.Why?Wouldn't that be the most important thing to mention? Yet the 1st 3 gospels don't until John.Look, we can have a difference of opinion about him. And I understand that he is not a popular guy in christain circles. But if you are a christain calling him a BS artist doesn't sound Christlike aren't you suppose to 'love your enemies'','...turn the other cheek?'
@@jasonleslie4349 Why do you continuously insult God and Jesus Christ? Jesus obviously referred to himself as the Son of Man. Matt 8: 20 And Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" Matthew is not John. Jesus Christ didn't need to say "I AM GOD" for readers of the scriptures to understand that Jesus is claiming to be God. As doubting Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and my God." Now, in Romans 9:5, Paul writes "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." As you know, Paul is not John. Do you not believe anything in the Bible?
Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and tear you to shreds" ... "Do not cast your pearls before swine" ... This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It means that Christians should not be hypocritical judges, but should be able to discern who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel -- specifically talking about con artists like Ehrman, who are bent on turning people away from God.
I would question whether Ehrman should be considered a historian. I majored in history as an undergraduate and we were taught to rely on primary source material. Modern biblical criticism, however, usually tries to discount the primary sources (in this case, the four gospels in the New Testament), and instead tries to come up with an alternative scenario based largely on speculation and conjecture.
You majored in history? Which college taught you that you should rely on stories of miracles in ancient documents and literature? Historians do not do that. If you read the synoptics honestly, you will immediately become aware that they are loaded with apologetics for the converted and those they hope to convert. It is marketing propaganda and polemics against Jews that would not convert. It is us vs. them. It is carrots and sticks. It is 1000% propagandic bullshit by propagandist that were doing what they could to get their cult into the mainstream in a marketplace of competing philosophies, ideologies, superstitions, legends, wives tales. They were competing in the religious marketplace of their era. Their savior was embellished to be the biggest and baddest savior ever. He could do it all and then some. Jesus had to be made superior to all the other demigods as well as the heroes of the Hebrew ancient literature like Adam, Abraham, Moses, King David, John the Baptist, Joseph, Daniel... Jesus could do all their miracles and die for sins. How could anyone refuse the offer? It is a win, win unless you think reality should matter. Then you see it is all just fantasy, wishful thinking, and a way to herd people into an effective useful sacred belief systemused to combat cultures with other religious belief systems, usually for land, resources, or access to consumer markets for their domestic corporations.
I'm not sure how much Ehrman you have read, but his arguments come mostly form his reading of the gospels and other sources around at the time. In fact, as I mentioned in the video, in his trade books he rarely quotes other scholars (secondary sources). The differences between him and, say, Crossan, Wright, or Allison is their methodology in using the gospels.
Quite ironic when he primarily uses the gospels to highlight his points. Before dismissing him as a historian check his credentials out I think you might change your mind
@@vinceendris I have a couple of his earlier books, but not his later ones.
@@jasonleslie4349 His background, I believe, is in New Testament textual criticism.
Christianity is not a topic, it's a reality. Have you ever prayed? Did God answer your prayer? No matter how bulletproof any argument might be, if you have ever prayed and seen God's work then there's no way to reconcile the intellect no matter how wayward it might be with faith that has been confirmed by God himself.
Thank you for commenting, but you might have commented on the wrong one. This was not about theology or prayer.
The best evidence against God is the diversity of Christian faiths and all the other religions. God doesn't care about our interpretations of his teachings or whether one believes the actual resurrection occurred vs. spiritual or metaphorical... or more likely, Christianity's borrowed Jewish conceived tribal God is just as much a human invention as all the other gods, before or since.
@@stenblann9784 you may have commented on the wrong video. Nothing here about proving or disproving god.