Bart Ehrman and the New Testament Documents

[lhurien]

no it's not an exagerration. just another delusional theist trying to sell that bullshit. bart ehrman is right.

[MrBeETHICAL]

COMPLETELY BIASED ON 'HIS god' obsession .... no other way ... all oral hmmm ask the 'deadseaschroll' scribes or 'Paul' 'n those of his church fellows who had to makeup good 'press' after Paul died without the rest of the earthlings , hmmm

[laxr5rs]

What does, "reliable" mean to you in general? For some, there is not one error in the the New Testament. Tomb anyone? So, on what day did Jesus die? How about those zombie saints? I've always wondered about that.

To say that the major Christian Doctrines hold true through the NT is like saying, the thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations all believe the same thing. They do not, and they do not.

[vldmr0tube]

Gospels of NT were anonymous and not even claimed to be written by eyewitnesses, unlike some of Gnostic gospels. Not surprisingly, names of important figures that were considered reliable in the area where gospels were used were prescribed to orthodox texts when Gnostic gospels appeared...

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube "Not surprisingly, names of important figures that were considered reliable in the area where gospels were used were prescribed to orthodox texts."

Mark was not notable. Luke CERTAINLY was not notable. On the contrary, Gnostics attributed their gospels to prominent figures in the ministry of Jesus: Peter, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, etc. So you have it COMPLETELY backward. Is this seriously what listening to Bart Ehrman's nonsense has led you to conclude?

[thedagonjones]

How do we know scribes lied in the Bible?God said it was happening.Jer8:8.Such is why Jesus taught us the false apostle Paul was teaching the doctrine of Balaam in Rev2.Paul taught to eat meat offered to idols. Paul taught to negate God's laws.Paul was that false apostle to the Ephesians and Jesus commends them for rejecting Paul.

All the churches of Jesus are in Asia.Rev1.EVERYONE in Asia DESERTED Paul.2Tim1:15. All the 7 healthy churches of Jesus were eaten up by Paul's weak 7 churches.

[MegaVldmr]

By the way, look how careful conservative scholars choose their words. Just a "Textual variant" instead of "mistake". "Interpolation" instead of forgery. Even when it's absolutely clear what it is!

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr "Mistake" and "interpolation" are INTERPRETATIONS of textual variants. "Textual variant" is an unbiased description for a discrepancy between manuscripts. The word "forgery" carries the negative connotation of deception. Faithful scholars and critical/modernist scholars, conservative scholars and liberal scholars, uniformly use the terminology of "textual variants" when discussing this topic. So once again, you thoughtlessly leap to unwarranted cynical conclusions.

[MegaVldmr]

That's bullshit. What about the fact that events took place in Judea, and books were written 40 years later somewhere around Rome? Accurate preservation of stories is a product of a written cultures. Ask your grandpa to describe some event that happend 40 years ago about which he heard from a friend. How reliable will be the account?

[jimmo42]

Admittedly, Bock does a good job of of addressing the problems addressed by Ehrman. However, his "life-chain of testimony" is fallacious, because we know what that chain is with your grandparents and it only has 3 links. In the case of the oral testimony, we can have dozens if not hundreds of links, spread across decades and multiple cultures. Further is comment that the stories were repeated "carefully" is very misleading. The message was important not the details.

[Strefanasha]

Who is Bart Ehrman? clearly he exaggerates the tiny discrepancies, the misspellings for example, out of dishonesty.

and of course the logic of the gnostic "gospels" excludes them, as the speaker here rightly points out.

and yes, oral tradition remembers something heard better than we do..

well done, sir

[doyoublush]

@Strefanasha Bart Ehrman is a distinguished professor in New Testament Studies. He doesn't exaggerates the differences; his observations are very empirical. John Chapter 8 (who is without sin, shall cast the first stone), for example, was made up later by unknown scribes: the oldest manuscript of John, that does contain that part dates from the 10th century. The oldest MSS of John date back to the 2nd century.

[jimmo42]

@Strefanasha Who are **you**???

Obviously you have not read anything by Dr. Ehrman. Having read several of his books I can say he is extremely careful to point out that the vaste majority of the differences are insignificant. If you want, I will quote you the exact passages in "Misquoting Jesus" where is says exactly that. You are making the claim about Dr. Ehrman that you do not know to be true. You made it up. Isn't making things up called "lying"?

[Movies4Christ]

Love to see the response to Bart Ehrman by this man and also Daniel B Wallace.

[ChildofYeshua777]

The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is the book which the Talmud, New Testament, and Quarn have to answer to. It is the that which all offshot "monotheistic" religions are based on.

[myjizzureye]

The new testament documents are trustworthy and reliable and I also have a thick lush head of hair.

[skullsmasher01]

@myjizzureye you dont have any hair you liar...your as bald as a bowling ball but twice as thick

[ElasticGiraffe]

Ehrman is nothing but a sensationalist author and bitter ex-fundamentalist, who takes facts acknowledged by all New Testament scholars, makes them out to be devastating to historical Christianity, and bastardizes the accepted methods of textual criticism in order to undermine the integrity of the manuscripts. Of course, anti-religious simpletons who know nothing contend that he is a fantastic biblical scholar, even though he has lost all scholarly credibility among his peers in the field.

[MegaVldmr]

@ElasticGiraffe Well, Ehrman claims again and again that he writes nothing new in his books. He claims again and again that all he does is just putting known stuff in the books that ordinary people understand.

Textual criticism? Screw that. No one told me gospels were anonymous. No one told me the bible did not exist until 300 years after Christ. No one told me John contradicts synoptics. Do "accepted" methods of textual criticism involve not telling people what scholars know???

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr Screw textual criticism, huh? Ehrman obviously thinks he's doing textual criticism. No one told you that the Bible did not exist until 300 years after Christ? Maybe someone should have set you straight. Although full lists of the Greek biblical texts very close to the finalized NT canon were compiled by theologians as early as the 2nd-3rd century (with some books like Hebrews, James, and Revelation being contentious). The canon was not "officially" declared until the late 7th century.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr Often a church would have one of the gospels or some of the letters of Paul, etc. It took awhile for them to be compiled as a complete set. There was little mainstream disagreement at all over most of the books' inclusion (AND their authorship) and virtually none over the Pauline epistles. Accepted methods of textual criticism involve responsible application of the principles of dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc. Ehrman is just a disgruntled ex-fundamentalist and a lousy text critic.

[MegaVldmr]

@ElasticGiraffe Try to read Mark without knowing what have been said in John. You will get very different picture of Jesus. Why 4-gospel canon of one christian group anyway?

Accepted methods of textual criticism? I see how apologists use them. "Virgin birth is known from Luke and from Matthew, and these are independent so the testimony is reliable". Excuse me??? Formal methods being applied to the bible are often used to mislead people and prevent them from knowing what really happened!

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr Of course, you will get very different pictures of Jesus. John was not attempting to write in the same way or for the same reasons that Mark was. Mark probably wrote a detailed gospel while in Rome and according to Peter's testimony. Matthew polished Mark's account and wrote for Palestinian Jews. Luke, a physician and competent historian, did likewise for his patron Theophilus (and likely also Hellenistic Jews) as the first book in a two-part series -- the other part being Acts.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr John wrote close to the end of the first century, possibly because he wanted to address a creeping belief in docetism (although later Gnostics who utilized his gospel seemed to have missed this) and to give his own account of events in the ministry of Jesus. Although it is ancient biography of sorts, providing an accurate historical chronology was not his primary concern. Doctrine, specifically Christology, was. Thus, John is not a synoptic gospel. No conspiracies. No problems.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr Why not four gospels? These were considered authoritative accounts of Jesus' life because of their apostolic origins. Papias and Irenaeus testify to a lot of NT authorship; they were not far removed from the original disciples themselves, John in particular.

If the criteron of independent attestation is met, this increases the likelihood that it a claim is reliable. Nobody says it provides certainty. But neither does lack of independent attestation imply that a claim is UN-reliable.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr "Formal methods being applied to the bible are often used to mislead people and prevent them from knowing what really happened!"

This is exactly why Ehrman should be avoided. His sensationalism -- depicting well known, universally acknowledged, and nonthreatening facts about the NT manuscripts as if they were closely guarded secrets that conservative scholars are "embarrassed" to admit -- creates conspiracy nuts. His backward textual criticism creates skeptics for the wrong reasons.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr While many of Ehrman's critics are apologists for the acceptance of the historical reliability of the NT biographies, remember that HE is an apologist for the rejection of their historical reliability. He actively engages in public debates to attempt to undermine them -- and he ends up flying off the handle, revealing that he too is emotionally invested in his conclusions, and appearing incompetent because he misuses historical methods and goes against the grain of his profession.

[MegaVldmr]

And Ehrman in my opinion applies the criteria very fairly.

The problem mainstream christianity is that it's by very own definition consisted of churches among which disagreements were little. What about other churches? And what about gnostic christians? How do we know owr view of Christ is correct one?

By the way do you really believe in Luke's gospel that says that Jesus has flew away into space? Where did he go? Alpha Centaury?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr "And Ehrman in my opinion applies the criteria very fairly."

Of course he does -- in YOUR opinion because YOU don't understand the methodology of ancient historiography or how scholars apply the techniques of textual criticism. Neither do most people, which is precisely why his sensationalist books are popular with lay skeptics. What about Gnostics? Ehrman takes them seriously. Nobody else does because most Gnostic texts came a century or two after the canonical gospels; they were

[ElasticGiraffe]

@MegaVldmr even more spiritual (religiously Middle Platonist and pagan) than the synoptics, their authors had precious little understanding of Palestinian Judaism, they are not ancient biographies but most are sayings gospels, and the successors of the apostles -- who could trace their spiritual lineage back to Jesus of Nazareth himself -- never accepted them as authoritative testimonies. Ehrman only gives them support because they have almost nothing in common with Christian orthodoxy.

[vldmr0tube]

@ElasticGiraffe Papias and Irenaeus did NOT testify about the autorship of gospels that are in NT now.

They both wrote(although a lot of time has passed and it is unclear for me where did they get the information) Papias: "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew language and everyone interpreted as he was able." (the proto-Q document??? Other sayings gospel?)

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube If the early church theologians were attempting to "cover up" this gospel because it contained different theology, they obviously did a lousy job because they talked about it a great deal and held it in high esteem. Yes, Papias and Irenaeus DID testify about the authorship of the NT gospels. Maybe you should go back and read the contexts of the quotes you provided. They were discussing the origins of the four canonical gospels. Matthew's Hebrew composition is mysterious, but you seem

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube to consider it an argument against the historical reliability of the Greek gospel of Matthew. Both gospels have Jewish audiences in mind and were obviously written by a Palestinian Jew; the Greek gospel is replete with OT references and Semiticisms. Also, as we both noted, Mark was an important source for the Greek gospel of Matthew, and there is no disagreement over who wrote Mark's gospel, who provided the information for it (Peter), and whether it was apostolic and authoritative.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube By the way, there is a case to be made from other usage (that I find particularly interesting) that when Papias and Irenaeus used the term, "Hebrew dialect," they mean a Semitic style of speech -- NOT the Semitic language. So your criticism might be much ado about nothing.

"(although a lot of time has passed and it is unclear for me where did [Papias and Irenaeus] get the information)"

Papias was a companion of Polycarp (the disciple of JOHN), and he became bishop of Hieropolis.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (Lyon, France) and the disciple of Polycarp (the bishop of Smyrna), who was the disciple of John (the bishop of Ephesus), who was the disciple of Jesus of Nazareth.

[ndzoko]

@ElasticGiraffe Since the average lifespan of people in biblical times and later was no more then 40 to 45 years., Those people must have lived much longer, if what you are saying is true.

[vldmr0tube]

@ElasticGiraffe Irenaeus (130-200) "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." 70 years min. after the event. That's one reliable source... And both say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, However, we can see that the "gospel of Matthew" was written in Greek and the author used Mark written in Greek as reference.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube Yes, Irenaeus said Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel. There is also little doubt that he is paraphrasing Papias' earlier statement:

"So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated as he was able." (Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39)

This could be a reference to the "Gospel of the Hebrews," a lost document which that was popular among the early Nazarenes. Or it could refer to something else. Scholars are unsure.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@vldmr0tube Sorry, I didn't see your previous comment quoting Papias until I posted. Origen also agreed with that incidentally:

". . .the first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterward an emissary of Jesus the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew." (Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6:25)

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek were all spoken in the first century in the Holy Land.

[skepticnyc]

Dallas Theological Seminary is an EVANGELICAL SEMINARY.

[psandbergnz]

The problem is that we do not have the original texts. The Gospels were all written anonymously, so we know nothing about the writers. Although the originals may have been written in the 1st century, we have no idea how divergent the texts may have been from the texts upon which our Gospels are based.

[JazzLoverKhurram]

There are so many sects and divergent streams within christianity that this fact alone to a complete outsider negates it as an all-encompassing universal revelation of truth for all people (similar statements can be made about just about any other religion btw which gives us more insight into the way human culture and thought evolves).

The pattern seems in human consciousnessto be that each new ideology can only exist by necessarily being a corruption or heresy of what came before.QED

[takewhole]

The New Testament wasnt written by Jesus. We cannot hold Jesus to account on the basis if the NT as they are not his words. Simples.

[MrSteveSpears]

The question that Dr. Ehrman states in the first few pages remains. If the writings of the Bible are the result of divine origin from an omnipotent god, than why didn't that god also preserve them, wholly intact?

[monumonu2007]

john 3|16 and 1john 5 7 is an interpolation.full stop.bed rock of christianity is gone here.

[Archaenum]

1:30 Incorrect. The doctrine of the Trinity is central to Xian theology, yet it is not in any Greek manuscript prior to 1516. Erasmus was supplied with a brand new manuscript in which 1 John 5:7 "miraculously" appeared.

Regardless, even the extant manuscripts retain all the contradictions that the inventors placed in their writings. Later scribes "corrected" some to fit their beliefs, but removal of contradictions would reduce the Bible considerably.

[Paulkazey1]

Utter tosh. Matthew 28 has Jesus ask that his believers batise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mark Chapter 1 has the Father praising Jesus, the son, Jesus being baptised and the Holy Spirit descending in symbolic form as a dove. The councils of the Church formulated the Trinity doctrine without any reference to the phoney verse in 1 John.

[Archaenum]

'' The councils of the Church formulated the Trinity doctrine without any reference to the phoney verse in 1 John. ''

Yup. The theologians invented a doctrine that was NOT in ANY of the Greek manuscripts of the NT. Obviously, these were all copies because the originals were no longer extant. They inserted the Johannine Comma into Latin versions, and purposely "produced" a Greek version when Erasmus omitted the theological addition from his Greek NT.

Utter tosh!

[Paulkazey1]

Matthew 28 states there is a Trinity. John 1 v 1 shows Jesus preexistence. Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, 'I am'.

Get your facts straight. God loves you and wants to save you. Jesus died to save you from your sins.

[Archaenum]

Read what I said. Your examples are irrelevant.

If you wish to get *your* facts straight, then you ought to stop regurgitating unsubstantiated, circular claims. Belief is not evidence of the content of claims, particularly when those claims are made in highly flawed, highly prejudiced documents.

[Paulkazey1]

Ehrman is quick to cite gnostic gospels but by his own criteria they cannot be trusted because they are not the originals and may have been corrupted in transmission. Ehrman rejects the validity of the NT on this basis but doesn't discount single copy gnostic texts. His thesis is self refuting and illogical.

[Archaenum]

@Paulkazey1

Cite gnostic gospels? Do you mean the "lost gospels" that the early church fathers rejected because they did not fit the evolving dogma?

In what context are you saying that Ehrman cites them? In "Lost Christianities"?

Since none of the original Greek manuscripts of the NT are extant, your argument applies to the entire NT. So, it is your thesis that is "self-refuting and illogical".

[Paulkazey1]

Why is it that an Arian sect such as the Jehovah's Witnesses need to mistranslate the New World Bible to make it fit their non Trinitarian beliefs. John 1 v 1, the quotation of Malachi in Mark ch 1, where Jesus is equated with Yahweh and sop many more texts point to Jesus divine status.

[Lekozza]

@Paulkazey1

They are corrections, not mistranslations.

[robibrad]

Excellent brief presentation of the textual evidence for the veracity of the New Testament text by an expert in the field.

[dimbulb23]

Prove God, then prove he wrote a book, then prove the book you have isn't a fraud.

That's the sequence.

I'm working on my 7th decade of waiting for step one to be completed so I'm not very optimistic.

[muzakgeek]

So, you can remember a story that your grandfather told you when you were a kid, which is one that he remembers back when he was kid, so... that means it's probably true and accurate. Seriously!?... That's your answer to Dr. Ehrman's historical textual criticism writings? Wow - Did they prep you for this question ahead of time?

This whole Q&A series is nothing more than drive-thru apologetics from a Dallas Theological Seminary fundamentalist that allows for zero critical response or analysis.

[99minerkc]

Misleading title makes me wonder the video producers agenda! Why wasn't Dr Ehrman in the video to defend himself??

[Rockymtntruth]

@99minerkc That's because they know they couldn't defend their position against the vast knowledge of Bart Ehrman and his intense research. Dr. Erhman knows his stuff.

[ravnoss]

And why is Bart Ehrman's name on this ????This misleading and hyperbole at best....

[Archaenum]

Pretty poor choice of title -- unless, that is, the uploader wanted un-deluded tubers to comment on Bock's biased remarks.

[richwfd2002]

@Archaenum Agreed. This guy even mentioned eyewitness accounts which probably did not exist. Even it there were eyewitnesses, he says it with such certainty that it leads me to believe that he's another "christian" apologist waving around the "faith" banner. It is really nothing but and emotional plea. He was probably indoctrinated when he was young. I can hear the twang in his speech several times. Buy bull belt ring a bell??

[benadam74]

Judaism not only had a very clear vision of the creation but of Who God is [Deu 6.4] in relation to His Son, Jesus [cp. Jn 17.3]..I disagree that the Apostles were "sitiing on these stories". We do'nt really know how early they were being written down and transmitted. Certainly Paul was writing at least by the 40s-50sAD.

[mumpty]

good comment at the end that the writing down of something typically happened AFTER the oral transmission started to fade. Thanks