Bart Ehrman, and the Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Part 1)

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina who is most famous for his books, Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, and his most recent one, How Jesus Became God. At some point down the line, I hope to specifically address How Jesus Became God, but here in the next couple posts, I’d like to address some of the more general claims Dr. Ehrman routinely makes regarding Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament

When it gets right down to it, what Ehrman essentially argues throughout many of his books on Jesus is this: (1) we don’t have the original manuscripts of the four gospels, (2) the thousands of copies that we do have all have differences (these are called “textual variants”), and therefore (3) you can’t really trust anything you read in the New Testament because it is not reliable. That’s basically the core thesis of most of his books. When you further consider that 99% of the textual variants found in the New Testament are of little or no importance, and have absolutely no impact on the reading or understanding of the New Testament, that makes it even more surprising: he’s saying the New Testament isn’t historically reliable because 1% of the textual variants actually impacts the reading of the text.

For the record, the two most obvious textual “problems” that have merit are the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, and the longer ending in Mark 16:9-20. In both cases a good argument can be made that neither section was probably part of the original gospel. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the longer ending of Mark that cannot be found in the other gospels, and there is nothing in the story of the woman caught in adultery that goes against anything theologically in the New Testament.

But by in large, that’s about it. There simply isn’t much else in the New Testament that has any significant degree of inconsistency or meaningful variation. So, if that is the case, how has Dr. Ehrman managed to write so many books about the apparent “contradictions” in the New Testament? The answer is that he does not just focus on these limited examples. What he does is point to other apparent “contradictions” in the New Testament that are actually not contradictions at all.

Simply put, I think Dr. Ehrman’s problem is one that is common to many scholars: although undoubtedly very good at historical criticism and grammar, etc., he proves that he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t value the literary artistry of the gospel writers. It is almost like getting a PhD in English Literature, and being so focused on pointing out all the possible sources Shakespeare used to write Romeo and Juliet, and being able to point out every variation in the earliest manuscripts we possess, that you forget to actually read and enjoy Romeo and Juliet as a play.

In any case, in a past debate with Dr. Craig Evans, Ehrman made a number of claims regarding what he considers to be the unreliability of the New Testament. I am simply going to summarize some of his main arguments, and then provide my own response.

Point #1: Contradictions
In response to the question, “Are the gospels historically reliable?” Dr. Ehrman claimed, among other things, that there are contradictions (a) in the genealogies, (b) in timing of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, (c) about when Jesus died, (d) about when the stone was rolled away, (e) about who was at the empty tomb, and (f) about when the disciples went to Galilee.

Dr. Ehrman’s flaw in his reasoning lies in the fact that he clearly does not have an accurate understanding as to what the gospels are. Simply put, he assumes that the gospels are intended to be simply straightforward history, similar to how a modern writer might write an autobiography of a famous figure: very chronological, very linear, and a “just the facts” kind of writing. On top of that, it seems clear to me that the fundamentalist background in which Ehrman had initially gotten saved but now rejects, still nevertheless colors his understanding of the gospels.

He makes it very clear that he rejects the notion that the New Testament was some sort of scientifically accurate document that came directly from the mouth of God. That’s great—most biblical scholars and Christians for that matter don’t believe that either. The fact is, the Bible that Ehrman rejects is more a figment of the fundamentalist imagination than it is the actual Bible that we read.

When Ehrman claims that there are “contradictions” in the New Testament, he is coming from a literalistic foundation that ironically is rooted in the scientific-humanism of the Enlightenment. Simply put, his starting position for understanding what the New Testament is, is flawed. The gospels are not some sort of ancient newspaper articles that are trying to give “just the facts.” They are prophetic interpretations that bear witness to the historical events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, yes, they have an agenda—they are trying to convince their readers that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant promises that God had made to Abraham and Israel in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they are still rooted in history, prophetic in their interpretation, and literary in their genre. What this means is that they are not just “giving facts”—they use literary and artistic license in their works. Therefore, what Ehrman calls “contradictions” are simply different brushstrokes on different canvases.

The Genealogies
Take for instance the genealogies—neither Matthew nor Luke were attempting to give a comprehensive and fully “accurate” genealogy of Jesus. Matthew’s purpose was to highlight Jesus’ lineage within the family of Abraham, whereas Luke’s purpose was to link Jesus to all of humanity. Neither one was trying to do a genealogy that would pass muster on Ancestory.com. They were doing Christology, and using their genealogies to say something about Jesus’ identity; they weren’t trying to give a complete and historically accurate family line of Jesus. That may sound strange to our ears, but it would be completely understandable to their original audiences.

When Was the Last Supper? When Did Jesus Die?
As for when Jesus died, the question that comes up in on what day did Jesus actually die? Was it the actually eve of Passover or the day before? John says it was before the Feast of Passover, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke say it was the day of Unleavened Bread itself, when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Ehrman would like to have us believe that not only is this a clear contradiction, but that it somehow completely challenges the trustworthiness of the accounts. Let’s not forget, whether or not the meal took place the day before Passover or on Passover itself, all gospel writers agree: there was a meal, it was during that Passover week, and Jesus was arrested and crucified within the following day after the meal. None of the major historical and theological points are disputed. The debate over which day the meal happened has been addressed by many scholars, and many have made a convincing case that even on this specific point, that there isn’t a real contradiction.

I’m inclined to think that John was being more specific as to when the meal happened than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Let’s give an illustration: my family has the Christmas tradition of opening our gifts on Christmas Eve. If I say, “Last year when we opened our gifts at Christmas, I got a shirt,” but my brother says, “Last year, when we opened our gifts on Christmas Eve, Joel got a shirt,” are those two statements contradictory? I don’t think so.

The Women at the Tomb
As for the other apparent contradictions Ehrman claims, the above analogy can apply. John said Mary went to the tomb, Luke said it was the women from Galilee, Mark said it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and Matthew said it was the Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Are these really contradictions, or is what we have is simply the different writers choosing to tell this event in a slightly different way? If John had said, Mary…and only Mary…went to the tomb,” and then Mark had said, “Salome went, but Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were definitely not there,”—well, that would be a contradiction. But that is not what we have here. Ehrman is simply misrepresenting the facts and is denying the literary freedom the gospels writers employed in their gospels.

Point #2: Did the Gospels Preserve Jesus’ Teachings Accurately?
In response to the question, “Do the gospels accurately preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ?” Ehrman claimed that even contradictions in minor details means that the gospels are unreliable. Therefore, if the Bible is inaccurate in some minor details, then it’s all unreliable.

Jesus’ Self-Disclosure
He then pointed out that in the gospel of John, Jesus actually calls himself God and sees himself as divine (what is known as “high Christology”), whereas such statements are absent in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Ehrman’s point is simple: Matthew, Mark, and Luke “contradict” the claims of John.

First off, Ehrman’s claim that if there are minor variations in details then “the whole thing is unreliable” is, in my opinion, very uncritical. Such thinking is on par with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum who thinks if Genesis 1 isn’t scientifically accurate, and if it wasn’t a literal seven days, then we can’t believe anything in the Bible. Such a mentality betrays a very extreme fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I find it ironic, therefore, that although Ehrman has rejected the fundamentalism of his youth, his approach to the Bible is still very much influenced by that very same fundamentalism.

Secondly, as for John’s high Christology and the other gospel writers’ low Christology, again Ehrman overstates his case. Yes, John makes explicit what the other writers make implicit. And yes, I don’t necessarily think that John is directly quoting every exact word of Jesus (for instance in John 13-18—that’s one long discourse!). Yes, it seems odd that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus is constantly telling his followers to keep a tight lip as to who he is, whereas in John, Jesus is openly making claims of equality with the Father. But this is where we need to consider not only the time and setting when the gospels were written, but again, the literary artistry each writer employed.

The Historical Impetus for the Writing of the Synoptics and John
I believe that the impetus for the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (all written around 70 AD) was the destruction of the Temple and city. Just like Jeremiah had been vindicated as a true prophet of God when his prophecy of the Temple’s destruction in 587 BC came true, in a similar way Jesus’ identity as Messiah had also been vindicated when his prophecy of the Temple’s destruction came true in 70 AD. Up to that point, although the early Christian community had begun to take root, there was still a lot of uncertainty and debate within the Jewish community concerning Jesus. Yes, there was rejection by many Jews (particularly those in authority) of the apostles’ Gospel, but the early community had attracted Jewish followers.

When the Temple was destroyed, though, the early Christian community felt this signaled the vindication of Jesus’ identity on a nationwide scale: what he prophesied had come true. The Synoptic gospels, therefore, were sort of the “official written announcements” that summarized the early Church’s proclamation about Jesus’ Gospel over the past 40 years. Therefore, the “messianic secret” we see in the Synoptics reflects the uncertainty within the Jewish community concerning Jesus. And yes, I feel that Jesus’ “secret” was, if you will, more “historically accurate,” if you will. But John wasn’t trying to write the way Matthew, Mark, and Luke did. He was obviously a bit more creative in his presentation—and that is entirely okay.

The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD, and by that time there had developed a clear and distinctive separation between the rabbinic Judaism and the growing Christian movement that came out of the Temple’s destruction. Therefore, when John wrote his gospel, his intent was to highlight that clear and distinctive choice in a much more creative manner. Therefore, I’m inclined to think that John exercised artistic license and essentially put on Jesus’ lips the explicit statements about his divinity. This is not to say, though, that Jesus didn’t “really” see himself as divine. The ability to forgive sins, to command the wind and sea, etc. (i.e. scenes found in the Synoptics) implicitly point to Jesus’ divine status and Jesus’ self-understanding as God’s unique Son. John simply brought the whole issue to the forefront of his gospel.

Therefore, the fact that John actually has Jesus saying, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” whereas the other gospel writers have Jesus downplaying his divine status in public, is not a contradiction. How one presents the message of Jesus greatly depends on the time and setting of when that person writes his gospel. Perhaps the better way to distinguish between John and the Synoptics should not be to distinguish between “high” and “low” Christology, but rather “explicit high Christology” and “implicit high Christology.”

Tomorrow, I will post “Part 2” of Dr. Ehrman’s basic arguments. If you can’t wait though, enjoy this video clip from The Colbert Report, when Stephen Colbert interviews Bart Ehrman.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yji71b/the-colbert-report-bart-ehrman