i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’
If fundamentalist criticism of a biblical scholar is the truest sign of credible scholarship, then Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has quickly found himself at the top.
A collective of concerned Christians have launched the Ehrman Project, a website that provides dissenting, “Christian” responses to the biblical scholarship that Dr. Bart Ehrman has presented in his recent books, including Misquoting Jesus, God’s Problem, and Jesus, Interrupted.
It’s kind of like Josh McDowell’s books on Christian apologetics, except… well… actually it’s exactly like Josh McDowell’s apologetics, only online.
The website states it was launched by a campus minister and an undergraduate religion major to provide counter-arguments to the research of Bart Ehrman. But, since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title (Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here), the site is essentially little more than an online video version of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, where conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.
The video rebuttals offer little more than setting up and knocking down straw men, red herring explanations, the reframing and redefinition of certain critical questions in a strained effort to avoid answering them, and the recitation of facts leading to non sequitur conclusions that only non-critical scholars would accept as satisfactory answers.
The video rebuttals posted on the EhrmanProject.com website include interviews from other, “equally qualified scholars who deal with the same issues and come to very different conclusions than Dr. Ehrman.” This diverse range of notable scholars includes:
- Dr. Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary
- Dr. D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
- Dr. Ed Gravely, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
- Dr. Michael J. Kruger, Reformed Theological Seminary
- Dr. Alvin Plantinga, University of Notre Dame
- Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary
- Dr. Ben Witherington, Asbury Theological Seminary
Notice anything in common?
Let me be clear: please don’t mistake my questioning of the EhrmanProject website as a questioning of all Christian scholarship or Christian universities and seminaries. There are plenty of excellent schools and seminaries that hire credible scholars who adhere to solid, critical methods of biblical scholarship, and who would never appear on a website calling into question the scholarly methods employed by most biblical scholars in the country. I simply wish to point out that the criticism of Dr. Ehrman (and the larger academy by proxy) is largely being done by a small number of vocal scholars at very conservative seminaries at the behest of a campus minister and a religion major who didn’t like their faith challenged by critical scholarship.
I encourage you to view the videos and judge for yourself whether or not those interviewed answered the questions and dealt critically with the evidence, or skirted the issues. Then, if you have any stomach left, you can visit other diverse and “equally qualified” scholarly apologetic sites like Josh McDowell’s site and Lee Strobel’s site and Kirk Cameron’s The Way of the Master site.
Fundamentalists certainly have their problems with Erhman. But to be fair, scholars have some issues of their own with Ehrman. The criticisms of Bart Ehrman from the scholarly community are essentially twofold: 1) must a scholar renounce his/her faith just because the Bible is not inerrant or infallible? and 2) Ehrman is only repeating the critical scholarship of other scholars in a popular format.
While I agree with the first criticism of Ehrman (one need not necessarily renounce one’s faith in order to be a critical scholar of the Bible, especially if one does not accept fundamentalist notions of inerrancy, soteriology, and/or systematic theology) – I actually applaud what Ehrman has done with regard to bringing critical biblical scholarship to a public audience. This is the truest form of education, and one must ask why earlier scholars haven’t made more deliberate attempts to bring what all good critical scholars know (that the Bible is not inerrant and not completely reliable as history) to the public. (It may have something to do with critical scholars not wanting to lose their jobs at Christian universities, or scholars at public universities not wanting to incur the wrath of (and lose book sales to) Christian audiences, but I digress…)
We should applaud Ehrman as a representative figure of what good critical scholarship does – use verifiable facts and sound logic to seek truth, and disseminate that truth to the public even if the public (often acquiescing to the threats pressureauthority of organized religious groups) does not want to hear it.
Therefore, I stand with Bart Ehrman as a biblical scholar who feels we should pursue the truth no matter where it may lead. It can only make scholarship (and the faith for that matter) stronger. For if one’s Christian faith can’t stand up to a few simple questions, then it is not a faith worth following. And if apologists must duck questions, offer red herrings, and flat out lie to others in order to convince them of the brand of Christianity they are selling, then the product is not worth buying.
Christian scholars may not like that Erhman renounced his faith, and may not like his often confrontational delivery, but we must stand behind scholarship’s critical method, facts, and conclusions, and we must not pander to the fundamentalist Christian organizations who seek to defend faith by less than scholarly means. TheEhrmanProject website claims it is “not meant to be an attack on Dr. Ehrman,” and I would agree; it is not only an attack on Ehrman, it’s an attack on critical scholarship in general by conservative apologists behind the veil of a campus minister’s website .
HT: Toto
This is crazy!
what is crazy?
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Any scholarship that rejects the testimony of Holy Writ with respect to it’s own divine origin and authority must be rejected.
Madmanna
The Bible nowhere claims to be the word of God.
1 & 2 Timothy, as most critical scholars now know, is a fake text, ie one claiming to be by Paul, but actually penned by someone else. Also Bart Erhman writes about your second quote from 2 Peter:
I.e its a forgery.
So when you quote a verse written by someone who is deliberately lying to his readers, I can’t except it. Besides the context of II Tim 3:16 makes it clear that ‘Paul’ is referring to the OT not the NT.
Where does Revelations 14:1-6 fit in the criteria of 2 Timothy 3:16 madmanna? Do you actually believe that a man can reach paradise by not getting defiled by women?
Revelation*
Paul,
He who can not prove something will as a last resort start to count the scholars on his side. After all no one needs a scholar to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Anyway the Bible as revelation is beyond the scope of scientific research. Most of what the venerable scholars are doing is a waste of time and money. As long as it is not my money I am not bothered
They have to justify their existence as someone is paying them for their nonsense.
I don’t think Paul was referring to the Old Testament; in that case he would have used the past tense to indicate that the process was completed and not ongoing. He wrote “all Scripture IS given”, not “all Scripture WAS given”.
Ibn Anwar,
It’s quite obvious that Revelation can’t be interpreted literally. I don’t profess to know how this passage should be interpreted. I don’t see any proof that the Koran or the hadiths even attempt to probe in to the mysteries of the future. That to me is at the very least a strong indication if not irrefutable proof of their non-divine origin.
‘I don’t think Paul was referring to the Old Testament; in that case he would have used the past tense to indicate that the process was completed and not ongoing. He wrote “all Scripture IS given”, not “all Scripture WAS given”.’
You misunderstand Paul’s teaching because you do not read it in context:
If Paul wrote this letter in the 50s or 60s AD there was no New Testament in existence at that time. So Paul could not be referring to the 4 gospels, all of his letters, the book of Revelation etc etc. Most of these had not been written yet. Furthermore, Paul refers to the ‘sacred writings’ that Timothy knew from his youth – say around 30 or 40 AD. These can only refer to what you call the Old Testament.
‘the Bible as revelation is beyond the scope of scientific research.’
Spoken like a true die hard fundy…lol
Madmanna,
How is it quite obvious that Revelation can’t be interpreted literally? Says who? The last passage of Revelation puts a curse on anyone who adds or deletes anything from it. Is that not to be taken literally as well? When it says Jesus is Alpha and Omega, that is not to be taken literally as well? Why do you not know what the correct interpretation for that verse is? Aren’t you supposed to be able to ‘prove all things’ according to paul is 1 Thes. 5:21?
How is the text to be understood? “It is possible that the writer of the Revelation did mean to exalt celibacy and virginity. The likelihood is that he was writing about AD 90 where this tendency was already in the church. If that is so we will have to lay this passage on one side because tested by the rest of the New Testament it is not a correct statement of Christian ethic.” (William Barclay. Daily Study Bible Series)
“4. Were not defiled (οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν). The verb means properly to besmear or besmirch, and is never used in a good sense, as μιαίνειν (John xviii. 28; Jude 8), which in classical Greek is sometimes applied to staining with color. See on 1 Peter i:4.
Virgins (παρθένοι). Either celibate or living in chastity whether in married or single life. See 1 Corinthians vii. 1-7, 29; 2 Corinthians xi. 2.” (Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament Part Two. p. 533)
“‘the Bible as revelation is beyond the scope of scientific research.’
Spoken like a true die hard fundy…lol”
I should have said it’s origin can not be the object of scientific research. Inspiration is a miracle and miracles can not be the objects of scientific research. You would claim the same for the Koran.
Ibn Anwar,
“The last passage of Revelation puts a curse on anyone who adds or deletes anything from it. Is that not to be taken literally as well? When it says Jesus is Alpha and Omega, that is not to be taken literally as well?”
Yes, I interpret these passages literally. For examle the following passage not literally though:
12 v 1-5 : “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered……….and she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled in to the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”
Obviously this can’t refer to the birth of a child in normal human circumstances. I will try and answer your other questions later.
Now you are contradicting your own claim. It was you who said, “It’s quite obvious that Revelation can’t be interpreted literally.” You should have made your stance clearer and said instead that some parts of Revelation should be taken literally whilst other parts should not. However, the passage that you have cited clearly uses metaphorical and symbolic language. The verse that I cited from Rev. 14 has little resemblance to the one you have produced above. The Catholics interpret that passage as a reference to ‘mater dei’ i.e. Mary. Protestants have a different take on it. None of these however have any bearing on Rev. 14. I have cited two well known commentaries on the Bible and William Barclay for one submits that the immediate message imparted by the verse is contrary to Christian ethic. Though other commentaries such as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown offer alternative interpretations they do not suggest that the verse should not be taken as it is i.e. literally. What is your basis for saying that William Barclay got it wrong and it does not mean what it clearly says?
“I should have said it’s origin can not be the object of scientific research. Inspiration is a miracle and miracles can not be the objects of scientific research. You would claim the same for the Koran.”
Well, the origin of the Bible if it is understood as revelation from high may very well not come under the purview of the natural sciences as they are usually concerned with the material world and God is quite immaterial. However, that does not mean that there is an insurmountable gap between the Divine and the physical. The physical can point to the direction of its maker, the Creator. Though science may be incapable of tapping into the divine and so unable to make positive or negative judgments about works claimed by adherents to be inspired or divinely revealed e.g. Bible, other ‘sciences’ such as higher criticism do shed light on the origins and reliability of your book. For example, through higher criticism we know that the reading of Mark 1:2 found in the KJV is a corruption and the original reading itself has problems. This and many such examples of interpolations, corruptions, editing etc. are proof positive that the Bible is hardly inerrant and should be subject to suspect to say the least.
from on high*
“You should have made your stance clearer and said instead that some parts of Revelation should be taken literally whilst other parts should not.”
True.
I don’t agree with Barclay because I don’t agree that the biblical text can be the product of deception. A “blanket” literal interpretation doesn’t seem to me to fit the context. If you look at the chapters before and after they contains descriptions of various beasts with frogs jumping out of their mouths, and the dragon, which is the devil I think. The number 144,000 occurs a number of times in Revelation and seems to be a symbolical number related to the number of the tribes of Israel, 12 x 12,000.
I don’t believe the 144,000 virgins are virgins in the physical sense but in a spiritual sense, having kept themselves spiritually pure amidst some type of trial, tribulation or temptation which is not elucidated in the text. Babylon herself is pictured as a woman. It could be that the virgins are symbolic of those who did not defile themselves by believing the lies of the great harlot Babylon. “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration”. The general view was that Rome was Babylon but I think now more and more Christians are coming to believe that Islam is the Babylon mentioned in verse 5.
Perhaps you can give us the proof of higher criticism for the corruption of Mark 1 v 2 ? I would be interested to see an example of this.
‘I don’t agree with Barclay because I don’t agree that the biblical text can be the product of deception. A “blanket” literal interpretation doesn’t seem to me to fit the context. If you look at the chapters before and after they contains descriptions of various beasts with frogs jumping out of their mouths, and the dragon, which is the devil I think. The number 144,000 occurs a number of times in Revelation and seems to be a symbolical number related to the number of the tribes of Israel, 12 x 12,000.’
Well, of course you do not agree with Barclay. But to say that I don’t agree with him because the Bible is true is circular reasoning. I don’t see how the immediate context disallows a literal reading of verse 4. The remote context has no bearing on it just as it does not have bearing on Rev. 1:8 and other similar statements that you do take literally despite the dragons, seven headed beasts etc all over the place. The number 144, 000 occurs only three times in Revelation. No, it is not a symbolic number related to Israel. It is a literal number that is literally related to Israel mentioned in Rev. 7.
‘I don’t believe the 144,000 virgins are virgins in the physical sense but in a spiritual sense, having kept themselves spiritually pure amidst some type of trial, tribulation or temptation which is not elucidated in the text.’
Exactly! What you have said is not at all elucidated in the text. This is your eisegesis which is unsupported by the text as you yourself admit. Barclay asks a very pertinent question regarding the verse in his work, “It describes the unsullied purity of those who are in the company of the Lamb, but in what does that purity consist?”
He then continues saying:
“(i) Does it describe those who in sexual relationships have been pure? That can hardly be the case, for the people in question are described, not simply as pure, but as virgins, that is, as those who have never known sexual relations at all.”
The word used in the verse is παρθένοι or parthenoi from parthenos which is the same word used in Matthew 1:23. The word usually carries the meaning of a person never having sexual relations like Mary. Can the verse be understood symbolically or metaphorically in the way you have suggested? Barclay answers in no uncertain terms saying:
“(ii) Does it describe those who have kept themselves free from spiritual adultery, that is, from all disloyalty to Jesus Christ? Again and again in the Old Testament we find it said of the people of Israel that they went whoring after strange gods (Exo.34:15; Deut.31:16; Judg.2:17; Judg.8:27,33; Hos.9:1). But this passage does not read as if it was metaphorical.” The whole point is that women are ill-portrayed in the Bible(s). The recurring theme of evil originating from women is easily and clearly ascertained just from a cursory reading of the scriptures. As you yourself said, Babylon(which is given such a bad rap) is paralleled to a woman. I would say that this is consistent with how the Bible generally portrays women.
“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all” (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28)
Echoing the scriptures Saint Augustine says:
“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman……I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”
‘Perhaps you can give us the proof of higher criticism for the corruption of Mark 1 v 2 ? I would be interested to see an example of this.’
I have done just that here http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/mark-12-is-still-an-error/
” The whole point is that women are ill-portrayed in the Bible”
“The recurring theme of evil originating from women is easily and clearly ascertained just from a cursory reading of the scriptures.”
These are good examples of scholarly rubbish. Why should I pay any heed to these idiots? A waste of time.
The 144,000 can’t be literal or else the text would just apply to to a small number of people and not have a universal application for the church.
Mark 1 v 1-2 kjv : “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”
What’s your problem? The modern versions of the Bible are based on corrupt texts. This shows up in the translations.
Why should you pay heed to these idiots? It is a clear sign of defeat when one resorts to epithets rather than provide sound counterarguments. What makes you think that the text should have a universal application for the eklessia? The verse clearly portrays women in a rather bad light and you’re just grasping at straws. Until and unless you can show that the Bible in general(not per se) paints a negative image of women and Rev. 14:4 is just consistently doing so you have no case to bear. My article on Mark 1:2 is detailed enough for any reasonable reader to study and I am sure they will concur that your one line reply is extremely deficient as a reply. In the said article I have shown that the most reliable manuscripts attest to the reading ‘γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ’ (it is written in Isaiah) rather than ‘γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις’ (it is written in the prophets). Even conservative evangelist scholars like Daniel Wallace agrees as I have shown in the article. To simply dismiss ‘modern versions of the Bible’ as being based on alleged ‘corrupt texts’ is unreasonable.
You have cited one verse in Revelation which is figurative and one verse in Ecclesiastes which cites Solomon’s personal experience upon which to build your anti-women Bible theory. Thin ice.
I have already argued that the text in Rev. 14:4 may not have to be taken figuratively. I’m writing an article on this which will clarify the issue further. As regards the misogynistic theme found throughout the Bible you may refer to my article http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/treatment-of-women-in-the-bible/
“Misogynistic theme found througout the Bible”.
I may refer to your article but I am not going to. Prove it here. If you can.
If I may chip in to your discussion gentlemen…
“Misogynistic theme found throughout the Bible”.
Here are some passages that embarrass the hell out of christians today:
1 Corinthians 11:
I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. 4Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Note that only the man is made in the image of God not the woman. Also note that Jesus is not described as the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, but is subordinate to God just as woman is subordinate to man. Finally, note how Paul commands women to wear the hijab – a practice abandoned by Christian women today but adhered to by Muslim women.
1 Corinthians 14:
As in all the churches of the saints, 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
Note that silence/subordination is enjoined on all women in church because of a legal requirement, not merely a cultural practice.
1 Timothy 2:
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
I particularly like this last passage as it teaches that women will be saved through childbearing! (One of the reasons I do not think this letter is by Paul – it contradicts his clear teaching on salvation in Romans). Not a message I hear very offen from the pulpit these days! Note also that Paul’s injunctions are not rooted in cultural factors but in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.
I have not noticed women being silent in church these days…
“Misogynistic theme found throughout the Bible”.
Here is just one (of many) Old Testament passages that teach the inferiority of women.
Women are worth only half of men:
Leviticus 27
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, 3the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. 4If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. 6If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver. 7And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the equivalent for a male is fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels. 8If any cannot afford the equivalent, they shall be brought before the priest and the priest shall assess them; the priest shall assess them according to what each one making a vow can afford.
Thank you Paul for those rather illuminating passages. The treatment of women during the 1st century C.E. into the early and late centuries of Christianity did not differ much from Old Testament times. Women in Israelite communities were without a doubt marginalised and inferior to their male counterparts as clearly portrayed in the OT narratives. Phyllis Bird writes about ‘The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus’, “Males occupy the positions of greatest authority, sancity, and honor and perform tasks requiring technical skills and training.” (Bird, P (1999). The Place of Women in the Israelite Cults. Alice Bach (Ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible (pp. 10). New York: Routledge)
The most striking verse in the New Testament indicating women’s inferiority to men is Ephesians 5:22. The verse reads, “The wives! to your own husbands subject yourselves, as to the Lord,” (YLT) The word used is υποτασσεσθε which means to be put under, to be in subjection (subditae as in the Vulgate). The subjection is made to the husband which is mirrored to the subjection to the Lord i.e. Christ who is thought to be God. Hence the husband is akin to God and his authority must be supreme over the wife and her subjection must be absolute just as she is to absolutely subject herself to the Lord. Husbands are portrayed as ‘gods’ in this verse and wives are below them in submission.
[...] when such folks will go to the trouble of creating in his name the "Ehrman Project". ("I stand with Bart Ehrman…") Launched by a campus minister and undergraduate religion major, for his own research. The site [...]
[...] the verse to a Christian who goes by the nick name ‘madmanna’ on Paul William’s blog which prompted a rather interesting discussion between the two of us that later unfortunately [...]
This entire website simply says that most of the scholars know what their talking about (like Bart Ehrman) and that the conservative religious ones don’t. It doesn’t specifically deal with any of the questions actually be raised. It uses ad hominem attacks on the ehrmanproject and other works such as The Case for Christ to dequalify them before a discussion can even begin about the topic. Although whoever wrote this puts the “equally qualified” Christians in bad light, he doesn’t actually state how they are NOT equally qualified, why their qualifications are not correct, and in conclusion why they actually shouldn’t be taken seriously.
This webpage is extremely biased, and is shading everything to it’s OWN COLOR without taking everything objectively first. A very unfair criticism of the ehrman project, one that I admire and give respect to. It should be noted that the introductory video states that while these people do not agree, it is terribly obvious that they do not hate or belittle Mr. Ehrman, and if you actually watch some of the video’s, even agree with Ehrman on some points, suggesting that they are truly trying to take the situation unbiasedly as well and are looking at the facts.
A very bad criticism of a worthy project indeed. I am not impressed.