Part 4 - Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.

Craig Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College of Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. A graduate of Claremont McKenna College, he received his M.Div. from Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Claremont Graduate University in southern California. He has also been awarded the D.Habil. by the Karoli Gaspard Reformed University in Budapest. A well-known evangelical scholar throughout the world, he is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bart
• Ehrman
• Craig
• Evans
• Resurrection
• Jesus
• Christ
• History
• Bible
• New
• Testament
• Chritianity
• church
• evangelical
• inerrancy

[rovingdesertfox]

Bart absolutely owns craig. This was no contest!!!!

[andrewlgm]

Ehrman deals in fact and history. He wins every time. But for every evangelical he loses. How could he win when the opponent starts every speech with "I believe"? His fact-less faith needs no historical evidence to answer a question.

[bentopapa007]

Dr. Ehrman destroys this yahoo badly. Evans doesn't answer the questions put him, but "preaches" to his choir.

[sendtoanthony]

What we have here is a scholar vs a True-Believer.

[202rickh]

Evans seems to be make his defense based on his belief that SOME of the actibities of Jesus are accurattely described. That wasn't the question.

[kenzo5716]

I am amazed how these scholars use the words "Judaism" and "Jew". I challenge both scholars or anyone else to give verifiable,documented evidence that these words ever existed in ANY bible of ANY text or language before the 1700s. They do not.

[guymassive]

Is it only me? But i just skip Craig Evans parts and move on to Ehrman, That Craig guy is dodging every question. He has not asnwered a single straight question he was asked. lol. Unbelievable. He was in denial.

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk For a miracle to be an accepted explanation of an event, every other explanation would have to fail, as probability goes, mathematically and scientifically backed up probability immediately rejects miracles since it's unfounded in objectivity. Give me a name of a scientifically respectable theorist who resorts to miracles when explaining why DNA forms helices.

by your logic the best explanation is that mohammed was in fact taken up to heaven.

How many times must one point this out?

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk - no historian can establish that Jesus resuscitated or that Mohammed was risen to heaven. Only theologians can. Why? Because there is no evidence. Words on a gospel written 40 year later are not evidence. If they were written one hour later, it still wouldn't be evidence.

thume fallacy? You people claim this as defense to senselessness without realizing that it's the same is-ought problem that led hume into agnosticism, if not atheism. read his works. He criticized ur position.

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm Jesus being risen from the dead is myth" No historian can establish any such thing since, to do that, they would have to prove God's existence is improbable, which they arent able or qualified to do, and which nobody has ever shown!

"History cannot prove miracles" this is known as the Hume Fallacy; probability theorists now say you can increase the probability of miracles if it is more improbable that the facts would be as they are if a miracle was NOT the explanation of those facts!

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk Even **IF**, Ehrman has "come to re-think his position", it does not mean he changed his mind. Honest people (unlike you) always question and "re-think" our position. We question our position and if it turns out to be wrong, we correct it. We don't deny the facts (like you) simply because it contradicts our current beliefs.

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk Ehrman later refutes Craig obviously deceitful claims by saying "because what he's saying I've changed my mind to, I don't agree with." Ehrman even goes so far as to poke fun at Craig's absurd claim he changed his mind. Nowhere in the debate does Ehrman make a statement that he changed his mind. Like Craig, you twist the statements by others to the point that the only conclusion is that you are being intentionally deceitful, i.e. lying.