Finally found a little time to summarize the debate my institution (MBTS) hosted as part of a Dead Sea Scroll’s conference. I’ve noticed a mention of the debate recently popping up over at the Textual Criticism blog, a post actually highlighting the debate which took place the night before at a local church. My post reflects the second debate which took place at the seminary. The two debated the reliability of the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospels New Testament.
Summary
Ehrman began with a “historian’s wish list” as it might relate to verifying an event such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ–several accounts, preferably from eyewitnesses close to the events, corroboration between accounts without evidence of collaboration, etc. He then asserted that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, were written 30-60 yrs after the event they narrate, have an apologetic flavor, and contain discrepancies. [Funny thing is that I’ve heard many of these same facts used to argue the opposite point!]
Evans began by focussing on the reliability of the apostle Paul as an eyewitness. He noted how the concept of the resurrection of the Messiah would have been beyond Jewish expectations, thus Jewish followers of Jesus wouldn’t have come up with such a theological position without the actual event. He asserted (1) the disciples knew Jesus died; (2) they knew he was buried; and (3) they knew he exited that place. He also highlighted Paul’s conversion–that Paul’s belief in resurrection would have changed from the typical Jewish belief in a general resurrection to the sort which is reflected in his writings.
Of course, there were further responses, but these didn’t amount to much. Mainly, Ehrman wanted Evans to explain differences in how the Gospels present the empty tomb account, and Evans wanted to appeal to the apostle Paul and Jewish backgrounds to argue in favor of the resurrection.
Surprises?
One would have to include how Ehrman appealed to the “telephone game” as support for his distrust in the reliability of the Gospels. It felt a bit elementary!
Evans accused Ehrman of “reverse fundamentalism,” and seemed to successfully match Ehrman’s usual confidence and “matter of fact, can’t-you-see-it?” attitude on stage.
Ehrman explained his journey from an evangelical to an agnostic as follows: (1) Evangelical fundamentalist [Moody, Wheaton, then to Princeton]; (2) Conservative w. disclaimers [around the Princeton years]; (3) Liberal [a few years later?]; (4) An agnostic out of dissatisfaction with answers to the problem of pain and suffering. I was surprised this was the issue that tipped him to agnosticism.
Conclusion
I believe Ehrman’s criteria for determining the reliability of the NT are too rigorous. His “historian’s wishlist” is satisfactorily met by the NT in my estimation, but obviously not in his. By “reliability,” he must refer to the absolute confidence that a document is completely accurate (according to modern standards, mind you!) by virtue of pure archeological (and related historical) verification. This simply doesn’t need to be the case!
[Since this is an important issue and I don’t want to be misunderstood, I reproduce part of my comment below here (see the first two comments below):
I think Ehrman’s view of ‘reliability’ is a modern “court-room,” beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt concept. Is this our measure of truth and reliability? It need not be. The fear of not subjecting the Bible to trial after trial is that (as Believers) we might not be able to justify our trust in the Bible. This is not the case. Yes, history and archeology support the Bible’s reliability, but enough with the trials. I resonate with Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones:
The authority of the Scriptures is not a matter to be defended, so much as to be asserted. I address this remark particularly to Conservative Evangelicals. I am reminded of what the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said in this connection: ‘There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is to open the gate and let him out.’ We need to remind ourselves frequently that it is the preaching and exposition of the Bible that really establish its truth and authority. – Authority, Lloyd-Jones]
As respectable a scholar as Ehrman is, I think he is demanding that either the Bible fit into his former conception of it in his early Christian years, or else it cannot be trusted. Unfortunately the world isn’t so black and white, and most conservative scholars are well aware of (and comfortable with) this! I’m sure Ehrman would disagree.
Josh,
Please excuse me if I am not reading you correctly.
You write, “By ‘reliability,’ he must refer to the absolute confidence that a document is completely accurate (according to modern standards, mind you!) by virtue of pure archeological (and related historical) verification. This simply doesn’t need to be the case!”
Maybe you can explain how the Bible is reliable? It is easy to argue that we don’t apply modern criteria, but what criteria are we to say the Bible is reliable? How would we say it positively. Evans seemed to *not* be able to make a positive statement about the reliability and historicity of the Gospels, but instead appeared to concede the debate. The debate was on the reliability of the Biblical accounts (B.E. focused on the Gospels to make his case that the Bible is not). How are you able to differentiate yourself from that? For what I hear is that we don’t have a modern basis to say that they are completely and absolutely reliable. Can we? In what way (positively — i.e., not by saying what reliable does not mean, but by saying what it does mean)?
Okay, sorry if this sounds polemical. That’s not my intention.
Steve
My point is that I believe the Bible IS RELIABLE and MEETS the criteria in the “historian’s wishlist,” but Ehrman wants it to do more. “Reliability” for him (in the case of the Gospels) would entail virtually no discrepancies between accounts, even greater textual manuscript support (as if the Bible doesn’t have enough!), and no apologetic concern. The fact that there are differences in the Gospel accounts actually supports the idea of corroboration without collaboration, even if a few details are murky (and yes, I’m comfortable with some collaboration, anyway). This doesn’t mean a particular
discrepancyalleged discrepancy reflects some sort of mistake (which Evans seemed to concede). I think Ehrman’s view of ‘reliability’ is a modern “court-room,” beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt concept. Is this our measure of truth and reliability? It need not be. The fear of not subjecting the Bible to trial after trial is that (as Believers) we might not be able to justify our trust in the Bible. This is not the case. Yes, history and archeology support the Bible’s reliability, but enough with the trials. I resonate with Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones:You wrote:
“An agnostic out of dissatisfaction with answers to the problem of pain and suffering. I was surprised this was the issue that tipped him to agnosticism.”
I’m not. Scholars of Ehrman’s and Evans’ caliber rarely “fall away” over textual issues…they ultimately reject the God of the Scriptures and His revelation in them.
I think the surprise for me has to do with the significance of the problem of suffering. I just don’t find it to be such a crisis issue. Multitudes disagree with me, however.
Josh, I would not have put the Bible on trial in the first place. And if I did, I would have brought James White or Douglas Wilson to speak. If we are going to put God on Trial at the school, then we need to bring in experts who know how to handle these kinds of conversations. Discovery Channel and the History Channel are constantly putting God on Trial. We have answers! Christians come to church and want answers. To that end, I disagree with your use of Lloyd-Jones in this particular thread. In another context, I think it is a great quote. But in this context, you talked about discrepancies in the Bible. So we have to talk about it. You said, “his doesn’t mean a particular discrepancy reflects some sort of mistake”… okay, what does a discrepancy reflect? I have never ever ever thought of the word “discrepancy” when I think of the Gospels. That word (a modern word), says something to me, and so we have to put Lloyd-Jones on hold while we explore what this means.
Tell me about the parts that you find to be discrepencies? Better, define discrepancy? Maybe you meant something other than what I think when I hear the word discrepancy
I think this is a good way to come at it: “We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.”
I’d like to forget Bart for a moment, and switch and talk with you. This is a fantastic subject, and one that requires great clarity.
You see, we are modern, and our words are modern, and discrepancy means something.
I agree with you: we didn’t need a trial in the first place. Indeed, the adjective “alleged” before “discrepancy” would have more accurately reflected what I meant–and this is important!
My main contention is that many Christians want to vindicate their beliefs with trial after trial. Attorney’s can be slimy, though, so which trial do we trust? In my opinion, I suspect Ehrman wanted to continually justify his beliefs before he turned away, and he now wants to tell other Christians to do the same.
This is significant, and Spurgeon’s comment seems applicable to me (are we not discussing a defense of the reliability of Scripture, after all?)–and I’m sure we all agree that there is a place for sorts of defense. Even so, we mustn’t feel it so vital to answer every question. It’s a lion! And besides, there are countless more questions we have not asked. That’s okay; it’s a lion! In this regard, I agree wholeheartedly with your quote (Article XIV of Chicago statement): “We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.” Yes, it is a simple as this. We needn’t any trial to justify our belief.
Thanks Josh. I pressed you rather hard for clarity, and you were patient and kind to answer. I agree with your answer. And I do like the lion analogy when we apply it in the same way (which I see that we are doing).
Regarding the debate itself: I left early (as the Q&A session started). I was low of spirit, and I felt physically ill. I had to get out of there. This truly was a low-point in my theological experiences at MBTS.
I have a bunch of non-New Testament documents that prove the resurrection, and I don’t recall them being brought to bear on the subject in any meaningful way. In fact, I know of 39 other documents that point to the resurrection.
Jesus’ doing a New Exodus means the Old Exodus was about a great escape all along. The Old Testament is about Jesus (John 5). So when I think about the resurrection, I have all these documents written over a thousand years, and they speak to one subject. The whole Bible is about this!
Now, what kind of genius can write a book over a thousand year period and it is about Jesus and the ultimate victory of God? Even when Jesus reads about Able, we find prophetic utterances. When Paul explains Adam, he explains the Last Adam. So stretching back to the start of this long story, there is a unified plot.
This was no invention. Any Jesus scholar knows that the Old Testament is about Jesus. So Bart would have to explain how Jesus was wrong in John 5. That is, he would have to side up with all the others ready to put him on trial and kill him.
I just don’t want to host that kind of trial.
I don’t mind a bit–clarity is important. 🙂
Hi Steve, love your comment here and what I see of your heart in it! Praise God! I am not a biblical scholar and you may be referring to well known documents (Josephus, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, etc.) but the extratestamental documents “that prove the resurrection” – could you specifically explain what you’re referring to? And I loved your comment about Jesus’ exodus and the original Exodus. Never thought of that before. I had an understanding of the parallel between Jesus’ flight INTO Egypt (with Joseph and Mary), then back out again due to Herod’s massacre and later death, but I think you mean his resurrection as an exodus, and of course, that makes perfect sense! Yes, I can’t see how all the critics out there who do their best to obliterate the idea of the word as divine inspiration by refuting the bible’s historical grounding, dating and redating texts, exerting great effort to insert doubt of textual coherence where there is none, can possibly think that they, despite all these monumental attempts at humanistic hubristic gymnastics, overcome the obvious miracle of the Word itself, that it attests to itself by being a collection of texts that no human mind(s) could ever assemble over such a long period of time to all point to one singular Person and His purpose. It’s as if Satan wants us scrambling through such myriad, minute details so we miss the huge picture with the answer in broad strokes before us! Blessings to you, Steven! And also, thanks so much, Josh, for your comments as well…REALLY appreciate your reference to Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones. Yes! And, praise God, “He isn’t a tame Lion”!
josh,
thanks for sharing details about the debate. ehrman is such a good debater. i TOTALLY disagree with his positions, but even so, he usually ends up whippin’ whomever he debates. it’s ironic that his whole agenda is based on his subjective take on suffering, yet skeptics who claim a scientific, objective methodology think he can do no wrong.
i find it odd that people don’t press the issue of suffering with him. i know so many people, including myself, who either came to faith or ended up staying in the faith because they believe Christianity and the Bible give the ONLY satisfactory answers to suffering. i don’t know, perhaps i’m naive. anywho, he can keep winning his debates, it just doesn’t matter for those of us whom Christ has captured and rescued, those of us who have our bones lit with a fire and our mouths opened by a powerful helper!
again, thanks for sharing. i remember his debate at MBTS a fews years ago when ehrman totally waxed some apologetics guy lol. like i said, i TOTALLY disagree with everything he says anymore, but dang, the guy can flat out debate lol.
Yeah, Ehrman is bold and assertive on stage, even when a particular argument isn’t very strong.
You all might be interested in his debate with Michael Brown on the problem of suffering. Ehrman tried his typical strategy (personal story…too many questions for the responder to answer…appeal to how “all scholars” agree with him), but Michael Brown won the debate handily by going first and being just as personal, more familiar with the OT text than Ehrman and really pressing time and time again with, “I know you’re a moral guy, but what is your grounding for that morality?” Ehrman always deflected the question by responding that God isn’t a good grounding for morality, but never answered it himself.
Jennifer, thanks for this conversation. Your appreciation of the language of the Exodus applied to the activity of Jesus is a wonderful discovery for all those who share in a sincere love of Christ. And we see Jesus speaking to Moses, on a mountain, of His work in Jerusalem, he calls it “Exodus.” This comes from Luke 9:31, “Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his exodon which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.”
The Greek word in Luke 9:31 is “exodon” and is translated by the KJV as “decease.” But, it is the Greek word, “Exodus.”
That may help you see better why I call the work of Christ an Exodus. Jesus said that he does all that he sees the Father do (John 5:19), “…but what he sees the Father do: for whatever things he does, these also does the Son likewise.”
Those great acts of God the Father in the Old Testament are Creation and Exodus. The Exodus is nearly definitive regarding the way the Father acts. Of course, there are other acts of the Father, but the Exodus is climactic. And coming out of it, all kinds of explanation and ramifications follow.
Now, to answer your question directly, recall, I wrote: “I have a bunch of non-New Testament documents that prove the resurrection, and I don’t recall them being brought to bear on the subject in any meaningful way. In fact, I know of 39 other documents that point to the resurrection.”
To which you asked: “documents ‘that prove the resurrection’ – could you specifically explain what you’re referring to?”
Forgive me, I am sorry to be so slight in my words. I was speaking of the Old Testament! That is, the 39 books of the Old Testament constitute 39 witnesses to the Messiah and his work.
For more on all this, I would also point you to 1 Corinthians 10.
Thanks for your kind words, Jennifer.
Steve