RSS
Evidence and Criticism
As a scholar, professor, and author, Dr. Bart Ehrman has undeniable influence over students and much of the American public. Yet there are equally qualified scholars who deal with the same issues and come to very different conclusions than Dr. Ehrman. The Ehrman Project is a website dedicated to engaging the ideas that Dr. Ehrman is famously expounding in the complex and nuanced realm of Biblical scholarship. It is not intended to answer all of Dr. Ehrman's claims nor answer the ones it does completely. Rather it is intended to give small snapshots that will potentially motivate viewers to research more information on the particular topic. After interacting with many students over the years, Miles O’Neill, a campus minister at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, began considering an online resource in response to Dr. Ehrman’s popular claims. Dustin Smith, a Religious Studies major of UNC-CH, enrolled in Dr. Ehrman’s New Testament course in the spring of 2009. Soon after, Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Smith started collaborating together on The Ehrman Project. With the help of numerous students, colleagues, professors, and friends, EhrmanProject.com was able to launch in early 2011. ~ Site's Self Description
Charles E. Hill (Oxford University Press: September 30, 2010), 240 pages.
It is now widely said that the four Gospels rose to prominence only after a long battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century, after the establishment of the Church by Constantine the Great. In Who Chose the Gospels? Charles E. Hill demolishes this claim, providing a more historically accurate, alternative account of how the Church came to acknowledge four, and only four, narratives of the life of Jesus. Hill offers not only an informed critique of recent, overtly "political" readings of early Christian history, but also a more nuanced analysis of how and why, out of all the Gospels written in the early centuries of the Church, just these four "made it" into the Bible. In fact, the author shows that despite the profusion of Gospels, there was wide agreement among church leaders, in diverse regions of the empire, at least from the second century onward, as to the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Thus it was not a conspiracy but common consensus that determined the books of the New Testament.
"Miracles and the Golden Rule: A Christian Approach to History" at Exploring Our Matrix (April 8, 2009).
One doesn't have to be committed in advance to history's inability to deal with miracles in order to begin to realize that one cannot claim that Christianity is grounded purely in history while other traditions are at best shrouded in myth. One simply has to apply the most basic Christian principle to one's investigation of the competing claims ... treating others as you would want them to treat you. The Golden Rule. And so what does it mean to do history from a Christian perspective? ... It doesn't mean defending Christian claims to miracles and debunking those of others, nor accepting Biblical claims uncritically in a way you never would if similar claims were made in our time. It means doing to the claims of others what you would want done to your claims. And perhaps also the reverse: doing to your own claims, views and presuppositions that which you have been willing to do to the claims, views and presuppositions of others. Once one begins to attempt to examine the evidence not in an unbiased way, but simply fairly, one cannot but acknowledge that there are elements of the Christian tradition which, if they were in your opponent's tradition, you would reject, debunk, discount, and otherwise find unpersuasive or at least not decisive or compelling.
Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger (Crossway: June, 2010), 250 pages.
Beginning with Walter Bauer in 1934, the denial of clear orthodoxy in early Christianity has shaped and largely defined modern New Testament criticism, recently given new life through the work of spokesmen like Bart Ehrman. Spreading from academia into mainstream media, the suggestion that diversity of doctrine in the early church led to many competing orthodoxies is indicative of today's postmodern relativism. Authors Köstenberger and Kruger engage Ehrman and others in this polemic against a dogged adherence to popular ideals of diversity. Köstenberger and Kruger's accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the "Bauer Thesis" using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church.
Craig Blomberg (IVP Academic: Jan 30, 2008), 416 pages.
For over twenty years, Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels has provided a useful antidote to many of the toxic effects of skeptical criticism of the Gospels. Offering a calm, balanced overview of the history of Gospel criticism, especially that of the late twentieth century, Blomberg introduces readers to the methods employed by New Testament scholars and shows both the values and limits of those methods. He then delves more deeply into the question of miracles, Synoptic discrepancies and the differences between the Synoptics and John. After an assessment of noncanonical Jesus tradition, he addresses issues of historical method directly. This new edition has been thoroughly updated in light of new developments with numerous additions to the footnotes and two added appendixes. Readers will find that over the past twenty years, the case for the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels has grown vastly stronger.
Darrell L. Bock (Thomas Nelson : November 6, 2007), 256 pages.
Ph.D.s and writers Bock (Jesus According to Scripture) and
Wallace (author of one of the most widely used textbooks on New
Testament Greek grammar) team up to address what they refer to as
Jesusanity—the trend to dethrone Jesus and view him as a wise and
revered leader rather than as the Christ of Christianity. They examine
the ideas of numerous scholars and theorists, including Bart Ehrman,
Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg and James Tabor. With precision and care
drawn from their years of research, they study six key claims—including
the idea that the original New Testament manuscripts were corrupted
beyond recovery, that Jesus' message was primarily political, that new
gospels like Thomas and Judas throw traditional views of Jesus into
doubt and that Jesus' tomb has been discovered. What emerges is an
appreciation for the rigors of biblical study and a wealth of support
for traditional views of Jesus. The writing is at times unclear and
difficult, and could not compete on its own with the books Bock and
Wallace critique. However, this overview provides a concise and
well-researched appraisal. ~ Publishers Weekly
Timothy Paul Jones (IVP Books : June 8, 2007), 175 pages.
Were the New Testament documents widely distorted by copyists as
Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus, asserts? Can we in fact have
no idea what was in the originals? Do we have no hope of knowing what
eyewitnesses said and thought? Are other documents left out of the New
Testament better sources for understanding early Christianity? While
readily conceding that Ehrman has many of his facts straight, pastor
and researcher Timothy Paul Jones argues that Ehrman is far too quick
to jump to false and unnecessary conclusions. In clear,
straightforward prose, Jones explores and explains the ins and outs of
copying the New Testament, why lost Christianities were lost, and why
the Christian message still rings true today. ~ Product Description
Bart D. Ehrman (HarperOne : February 6, 2007), 272 pages.
The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives
scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of
human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled
in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith
in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the
original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do
not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman
acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious
doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes
may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed
procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to
nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He
further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense
controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In
discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also
the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his
readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the
very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book.
Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections. ~ Bryce Christensen for Booklist.
Richard Bauckham (Eerdmans : December 15, 2006), 538 pages.
This new book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on
eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. Noted New Testament
scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the
accounts of Jesus circulated as "anonymous community traditions,"
asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the
original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham
draws on internal literary evidence, study of personal names in the
first century, and recent developments in the understanding of oral
traditions. Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study
of memory and cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the
form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean
break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges
readers to end the classic division between the "historical Jesus" and
the "Christ of faith," proposing instead the "Jesus of testimony." Sure
to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about
Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses will be valued by scholars, students,
and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.
Craig A. Evans (IVP Books : December 6, 2006), 290 pages.
Craig Evans is a very well-respected New Testament scholar with a
background in historical studies. Although Fabricating Jesus includes
brief though able refutations of claims made by The Da Vinci Code, The
Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, The
Jesus Papers, and The Pagan Christ, the bulk of material addresses
popularized claims made by more reputable commentators, such as J.D.
Crossan, Bart Ehrman, James Robinson, the Jesus Seminar, and James
Tabor. Evans begins by discussing his own religious background and how it was
affected by the critical study of the New Testament and historical
Jesus. He uses this personal reflection to try and understand why some
respected scholars have embraced such far-fetched theories. One of his
explanations is that some of these scholars came from strict,
fundamentalist backgrounds. When exposed to the critical studies, they
were not flexible enough to accomodate the new information in their
existing religious mind set. As a result, their faith was shattered
instead of modified. They see little middle ground betweeen strict
fundamentalism and utter rejection of traditional positions. Evans
points to himself as evidence of a middle ground that actually bases
its opinions on better historical evidences. ~ C. Price at Amazon.com
Ben Witherington III (HarperOne : October 3, 2006), 352 pages.
With all the talk these days about a diversity of Christian beliefs in
the first century, here's a book designed to smack some sense into the
dialogue. Traditional sense, that is. Witherington, professor of New
Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, creates
well-researched profiles of people in Jesus' inner circle—profiles that
stand up to the most rigorous biblical criticism. No flights of
fancy—just the historical understandings as they can be agreed upon by
the best and brightest evangelical biblical scholars. At times, there
is a strong whiff of defensiveness about the orthodoxy of the canon as
Witherington skewers views on early Christian beliefs made popular by
Gnosticism scholars Elaine Pagels and Karen King (they being among the
purveyors of the "strange theories and bad history" in the title).
Readers seeking a uniform and conservative view of early Christianity
will find a wealth of information about Jesus and his early followers,
which offers an ardent corrective to recent popular works by Bart
Ehrman and others. Others, however, may be so put off by Witherington's
polemical tones that they miss the meat of his research. ~ Publishers Weekly
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (First edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 6.
[T]heology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had
missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were
not really privy to the thoughts of God?
Beyond Born Again, p. 75.
The very admission of the need to harmonize is an admission that the burden of proof is on the narratives, not on those who doubt them. What harmonizing shows is that despite appearances, the texts still might be true.
F.F. Bruce (Eerdmans: May 1, 2003)
This book is a fantastic guide for any person, Christian or otherwise, who would like to understand the level of historical accuracy that can be found in the New Testament documents. In that Christianity is a religion whose truth claims are allegedly rooted in historical fact, it is key that the works through which we read of those "facts" be considered reliable. Bruce does a great job of doing just that. No historical account, regardless of reliability, can prove miraculous events. However, Bruce argues, if a work can be proven to be historically and culturally accurate with respect to most of its content, that document then becomes-on the whole-more compelling. Any historian would then need to take more seriously the author's questionable claims such as the miracles, and Christ as God and savior of humanity. For if an author can be shown to be reliable in all other aspects of his work, why should he lie with respect to the documentation of miracles? This line of reasoning, and many other arguments, make Bruce's short book a compelling read for anybody interested in this topic. ~ guy-72 at Amazon.com
John A. T. Robinson (Wipf & Stock Publishers: Jul, 2001), 384 pages.
Bishop Robinson, a theological modernist whose "Honest to God" made him controversial within the Anglican communion, began this book as what he labels "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem. As it turned out, he got much further than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack of any predisposition toward a "conservative" point of view. His conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence - indeed, little evidence of any kind - that anything in the New Testament canon reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction. Furthermore, other considerations point consistently toward early dates and away from the common assumption (a prejudice with a seriously circular foundation) that a majority of primitive Christian authors wrote in the very late First or early-to-middle Second Century under assumed names. ~ E.T. Veal at Amazon.com
Craig Blomberg (Broadman & Holman: Jun 1, 1997)
The intertestamental and first-century background information alone is worth the price of the book. Blomberg offers a concise treatment of critical methodologies (Historical Criticism and Literary Criticism), and then an eminently readable and interesting intro to the four gospels. Blomberg's survey of the life of Christ is as good or better than anything I have seen. What sets Blomberg's work on Jesus slightly ahead of that of Robert Stein (Jesus the Messiah) is, again, readability. Blomberg offers a chapter on the external evidence for the reliability of the gospels which seems to be basically a summary of his work from 1987 (Historical Reliability of the Gospels). He sums up this great work with a challenging look at the theology of Jesus. ~ Buddy Boone
~ by David Basinger, in Sophia: A Journal for Discussion in Philosophical Theology. (1983, vol. 22, no2, pp. 15-22)
Basinger responds to Anthony Flew's contention that: "the historian must maintain with respect to any alleged miracle that the event did not in fact occur as reported". Basinger concedes that Flew's argument has merit, but argues that it ultimately fails. And by the way, to save a trip to dictionary.com, "nomology" is the science of laws. Basinger concludes: "The fact that
an alleged occurrence is incompatible with current nomologicals must
indeed be seriously considered when the historian rules on its
historicity. However, Flew has failed to demonstrate that a seeming
counterinstance must be shown to be consistent with current
nomologicals before the historian can justifiably rule that it can be
known to have occurred. Alleged 'miracles' cannot be dismissed this
easily."
Remarks on "The Age of Reason" (S. King: 1831), pp. 64,66.
Let us suppose the case of a man who was born blind. He can have nothing but oral testimony of such things as are visible to others. Does it therefore follow, that, to him, the luminaries of heaven do not exist, and, consequently, demonstrate nothing of the power and wisdom of God? No: the demonstration still exists, by an intellectual communication from others; and this, to him, is a revelation. What is history, but a revelation of facts, though man is the recorder, the witness, the auditor, and oftentimes the cause? View your premises however I may, they are demonstrably false; and, consequently, what you draw from them must fall to the ground. ... You further tell us, that "the whole account is traditionary." The truth of this assertion, will depend, in no small degree, upon the definition of the term. But, if what you assert, were granted, I cannot perceive, how this would falsify the account. If the supposed facts contained in the Bible, be traditionary, and are, therefore, false, there is no historical account in existence, that will not be implicated in the common charge; and, if this be admitted, all moral and historical certainty, must, at one stroke, be banished from the world.
Remarks on "The Age of Reason" (S. King: 1831), pp. 58.
You pass on to an examination of "the books, called the Old and New Testament;" but, pausing on the margin of your inquiry, you ask, "who told us they were the word of God?" to which you answer, "Nobody can tell;" and hence you conclude, that "they must be false." That this is a legitimate inference, very few, I presume, will have the hardihood to assert. If I were to ask, Who told us, that the History of Josephus, the Epistles of Pliny, the Orations of Cicero, and the Elements of Euclid, were all written by the authors whose names they bear? and should be answered, "Nobody can tell," would this falsify the testimony of facts, which these books respectively contained? No one, I think, would presume to make such an assertion...
Remarks on "The Age of Reason" (S. King: 1831), p. 29-31.
You [Thomas Paine] say, "It is curious to observe, how the theory of what is called the Christian church, sprang out of the tail of the Heathen mythology." That your curiosity should be excited, when you think a favourable opportunity presents itself, of bringing the Bible into disrepute, is not a matter that excites much surprise; but evidence, that would connect your allegations with truth, would prove more satisfactory than an expression of curiosity. But so contrary to fact is this assertion, that we find no more than two or three quotations, from any Heathen author, in all the New Testament, and these are merely moral sentences; while the Old Testament is quoted and alluded to about five hundred times. ... Nor does it appear, that either the Stoics, or the Epicureans, in the days of the Apostles, were acquainted with the discovery which you have made. By these, Paul was accused, with being "a setter forth of strange Gods," when he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And for this offence, he was taken and brought unto the Areopagus, and charged with bringing strange things to their ears. ... It will be vain to reply, that this is hearsay evidence. If Bible evidence be hearsay, I would ask, from what source did you derive your information, respecting Christ and his Apostles? You quote, without hesitation, from the Bible, whatever you conceive will militate against the characters of those whom you condemn, and invalidate the authenticity of the Book itself; you cannot, therefore, in common justice, refuse and appeal to the same authority, even when an opposite purpose is to be served. And, when this is granted, unless I am much deceived, the head of prejudice will be more conspicuous than the tail of the Heathen mythology.