Dr Bart D. Ehrman met Dr Justin W. Bass on September 18th, 2015 in Collin College Preston Ridge Conference Center Frisco, TX Auditorium. Did Jesus really claim to be God? In an age of social media, skepticism and doubt, the conversation about Jesus in the public square has never been more divided.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, History
Blogging Theology 
You really should allow your readers access to the William Lane Craig video that I posted a few weeks back that destroys Ehrman’s shoddy scholarship and dishonesty. One thing Islamic apologetics does not need are more poorly reasoned arguments from embarrassingly poor and dishonest scholarship.
There’s also a video on Youtube of a Craig-Ehrman debate from 2006 in which Ehrman’s poor reasoning is horribly exposed – much to his ire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirk,
Ehrman is a very well respected NT scholar who knows his subject better that most. WLC is not a biblical scholar but a philosopher and conservative Christian apologist.
Back to the post above: did you actually watch the Ehrman-Bass Debate?
LikeLike
Dirk, on what specifically did WLC ‘destroy’ Bart?
Can you give the timeframe and the relevant video, thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul
What is your point? Let readers watch the videos and see for themselves if Craig’s criticism’s are valid.
Yahya
Tried posting the video a few weeks back but blog admin deleted it.
Craig comprehensively dismantles Ehrman’s scholarship – specifically, he conflates criteria severely hampering his capacity to draw logical conclusions, he misapplies probability theory, and he makes false claims about the universality of his position.
LikeLike
Dirk i’ll ask you again: have you actually watched the debate posted above?
I’m familiar with Ehrman, he is a skilled expert in the NT and the historical Jesus. WLC is neither of course.
Just a warning Dirk, comments should be relevant to the post in question not an opportunity for you to have a go at Ehrman.
If you feel frustrated about this go start your own blog.
LikeLike
Paul
Again, your point is unclear. The criticisms stand separate from whoever is making them.
Plus, I think poor scholarship and questions of honesty are pertinent to the post since it calls into question whether debate participants are arguing in good faith. But, as per your tone, I consider this conversation shut down. And yes I watched the debate.
LikeLike
I am glad you watched the debate. Perhaps you would like to address the issues raised by it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lane Craig himself has been accused severally of dishonesty in relation to Erhman:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2014/04/william-lane-craig-rationalizes-his-lie-about-ehrman/
LikeLike
Kabir
Okay, I’ll play.
Here’s another atheist who says he largely agrees with Craig’s criticisms of Ehrman.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8902
And here’s a transcript of the 2006 Craig/Ehrman debate in which you can clearly see – if you are able to remain objective – that Ehrman simply does not grok the depth of Craig’s criticisms and fails miserably at utilizing probability theory. He even agrees that Craig is correct that the four key facts establishing the historicity of the resurrection narrative are almost universally held to be historically factual by biblical scholars – Ehrman’s qualm is that he does not like this fact.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#section_2
Notably, as far as I know, Ehrman has not publicly refuted Craig’s charges.
LikeLike
Beautiful Dirk, I’ve actually read the transcript of the debate a year or two ago, commenting on the debate would just take far more time than I’m willing to dispense… I would however want you to answer this question: William lane Craig knew Bart didn’t agree with all of his four or three facts, he expressed surprise in that debate that erhman was withdrawing from his published works yet he repeated that Erhman agreed with this same facts in his debates with Dr.Rosenberg and Peter Millikan! infact Millikan clearly mentioned vermish and erhman don’t agree with his four facts!
Another surprise I got was that Gary habermass doesn’t also agree with one of these facts as having achieved the acceptability of the majority of NT scholars as lane Craig usually states…. please listen to Justin brierly ‘s unbelievable where he had habermas and an atheist NT scholar!
my comment wasn’t about who got it right about probability theory or who won that debate, it’s about the fact that WLC hasn’t properly represented erhman in some of his debates… it’s either he forgot, made a mistake or deliberately lied.
LikeLike
Kabir
Your first comment was vague – just a claim that Craig is dishonest about Ehrman and a link.
To be honest, I’m not seeing any convincing evidence that Craig misrepresents Ehrman at all from the link you provided.
Plus, what exactly do you mean by “(Ehrman) withdrawing from his published works”? Are you talking about his popular work, or his academic work? Did he officially retract his academic work, or just say so during a radio interview? Has he published new material abrogating the old?
To me this just adds to my perception of Ehrman as unreliable – not only has his scholarship been shown to be sloppy, his reasoning skills dubious, but now you tell me he’s wishy-washy about his published work too.
LikeLike
I thought you watched the debate? lane Craig himself made the statement to that effect when erhman appeared to back away from the oft -cited facts.
if you’re objective Dirk listen or watch those debates: WLC very Alex Rosenberg or Peter millican
your adjectives about Erhman are also not objective, one thing Erhman emphasizes almost constantly in his debates is :outside of conservative Christian circles, his views are same with those of other NT scholars… not even Craig Evans corrected that!
openness and objectivity is often times lost in the search f of truth and oftentimes by people who are usually the quickest to claim such.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kabir
Watching those debates would take more time than I’m willing to dispense.
Someone’s published work represents their academic position so citing it is standard practice – what’s dishonest about that? Again, how has Ehrman “withdrawn from his published work” unless he publishes to that effect? If Ehrman simply denies his published work during debates, then that itself is poor scholarly conduct and an admission of unreliability. That’s objectively self-evident.
LikeLike
Anyway if you do finally see the debates or read their transcripts, all I’m trying to point out is that WLC continued to say Erhman agreed with his facts though he knew from their debate that’s not the case.
LikeLike
Kabir
Craig legitimately referenced Ehrman’s published work. If Ehrman’s academic position has changed he should retract his work, or publish new work – particularly scholarly work – to that effect. Merely saying that he now withdraws from his previous positions is merely flaky, and throws the reliability of his work into question. Plus, it is easy to view it as dishonest.
Again, regardless of whether Ehrman has faith in his own scholarship is not Craig’s problem and he can cite Ehrman’s published work legitimately unless Ehrman publishes work denying his original position.
This is what I meant in my first comment that Islamic apologetics does not need more poorly reasoned arguments from amateurish scholarship. Yet this vein runs through Muslim apologetics where during debates they deny the reliability of their own written sources.
This is exactly what you have said Ehrman does – denies his own published work. No wonder he makes sense to you guys!
LikeLike
Dirk
Ehrman is an excellent Biblical scholar who has made substantial contributions to the understanding of the Bible. Dirk your animus towards him is clearly motivated by conservative Christian anxieties about his work.
Out of interest have you actually read any of his NT scholarship?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirk
I’m shocked that you perceive my views on Ehrman to be animus. I’ve merely pointed out that Ehrman’s work has been criticized for shoddy methodology, flawed reasoning, and his public appearances for displaying the apparent dishonesty in debate that has been discussed above.
Whether I have read his scholarly articles is neither here nor there – particularly since Ehrman doesn’t actually stand by his own work, according to those defending him against Craig’s critiques. That’s what I have been trying get across – if Ehrman decides in the middle of a debate that his own research is no longer valid, then why should I believe that any of his work is reliable? He apparently is not convinced by his own scholarship.
LikeLike
So the answer to my question then is NO you have not actually read any of the scholarly works of Ehrman.
I have read them all. The critical reviews from other specialist scholars in the field have been outstanding.
I suggest you are just a bitter fundamentalist Christian who hates Ehrman even though you have not read a single academic book by him.
What a joke! LOL!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, the above is for Paul, not Dirk.
LikeLike
Dirk your ad hominem attempts are pathetic. The superb scholar WLC thinks his God is like a three headed dog
LikeLiked by 1 person
At around 1h:11 in the debate video Ehrman explains, how the earliest Christian belief did not differentiate between Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension. They believed Jesus was exalted was taken up into heaven
Corresponds with
Quran 4:157-8 “Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent point!
LikeLike
Paul
Interpret my comment as you wish – as it happens you would be wrong, but as I say, whether I have read his work is irrelevant. If he disavows his own work during debates, then how reliable can it be?
Plus, I voice surprise that you have extensively read his work since none of your posts alluding to Ehrman discuss any of his academic work, only his blog and Facebook posts. But it’s not a pissing contest to see who is more well-read!
Burhanuddin1
Which debate are you talking about? In the Craig/Ehrman debate, at the 1:11 mark Craig is noting the lack of substance in Ehrman’s argument.
LikeLike
Dirk, the debate about the relevant topic at hand, not your red herring
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirk, the fact that you have not read a single word of Ehrman’s academic work yet compusively seek to denigrate him speaks volumes about your agenda and motives. This most distinguished scholar attracts a lot of hatred and personal attacks from Christians just like you.
It is a measure of how threatened you feel by his arguments that you sink so low.
I invite you to read critically acclaimed works such as the following to get up to speed on the issues & note the critical reviews from other specialist scholars in the field which have been outstanding.
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0199739781
http://www.amazon.com/Forgery-Counterforgery-Literary-Christian-Polemics/dp/0199928037/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul
I think your representation of me is inaccurate and unwarranted. You have no reason to think that I have not read his work, but I have good reason to think that you have not – you don’t seem to have posted on it anywhere in your blog. Again, this has devolved into a pissing contest which is disappointing.
Yet I still have no reason to believe that Craig’s critique is unfounded.
LikeLike
Is it ‘inaccurate and unwarranted’? I have asked you several times if you have read any of Bart’s academic work and you have refused to answer. I take that as a no. If you had read his work then why the evasion? Time to come clean dude.
Then you wrongly claim I have not read his books just because I have not blogged on them. For your info I read a huge quality of books every year – and do not write reviews on most of them.
You accuse Bart of “poor scholarship”. Yet there is no evidence that you are familiar with it at all.
All in all you come across as a troll.
LikeLike
Paul
Actually I haven’t accused Ehrman of anything – I have said that Ehrman has been critiqued by Craig for sloppy scholarship and poor reasoning and that he ripped Ehrman a new one when they debated in 2006. That has nothing to do with whether I have read his work – which if you read a few comments above you will notice I affirmed as having done.
I do think it is odd that you hold Ehrman in such high regard but do not post about his scholarly work that you have read. But I will take your word for it – it is not actually relevant to the discussion so it doesn’t matter whether you post about it or not.
LikeLike
Dirk, ok something relevant to the discussion
Dirk, do you believe the historical Jesus walked up and down Palestine telling people he was YHWH?
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
Leading questions are not conducive to productive discussion. If you have a point to make you should just make it otherwise you come across as sneaky.
LikeLike
To quote “Patrice” from another thread: “These missionary contortions would make B.K.S Iyengar proud, God rest his soul.”
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
So you don’t have a point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirk you claimed:
“Actually I haven’t accused Ehrman of anything”
But you spoke above of “my perception of Ehrman as unreliable”
You referred to “Ehrman’s shoddy scholarship and dishonesty”.
Final point. I do not believe you have read Ehrman’s academic work. Why? Because it has received very high praise indeed from peer review journals and specialists in the field. WLC is not a professional historical or textual critic. It is not his speciality. However, you like WLC because you share his religious outlook. That is obvious. You need to be a little more honest about that.
In fact, Bart’s ground breaking work Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics received very high praise from specialists in ancient forgeries.
It demonstrates with a mass of primary historical evidence & analysis (over 700 pages) that the NT contains forgeries and this was seen as an unacceptable practice by the early church that was sadly taken in by them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirk, the point is you don’t deal with the subject at hand. Instead you present fallacious attacks on Bart Ehrman. I agree with Paul Williams, all in all you come across as a troll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul
I’ve said that Ehrman has been criticized for shoddy scholarship, not by me but by Craig – and others…..
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/09/16/bart-ehrman-says-that-i-am-a-moonie-and-a-scientologist/
That guy seems to imply that Ehrman steps outside of his area of study in his work.
But again, get off this I’ve read/you’ve read nonsense – it’s irrelevant.
I respect Craig because practically none of the people he has debated have been able to assail his arguments. He’s even schooled scientists on their own area of expertise.
Burhanuddin1
I opened the door to productive discussion – you closed it.
LikeLike
Duck do you ever get bored trolling?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Productive discussion lol … instead of dealing with what the man Ehrman has to say on the topic of this post, you focus on what others say about the man …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Btw I have just finished watching the whole debate. Ehrman clearly won.
LikeLike
I have seen Christian apologists struggle with Ehrman’s claims, and so they invariably attack his credentials. I have myself used Ehrman’s works in my discussions with Christians. In one such case a few years back, the Christian I was talking to actually questioned Ehrman’s expertise by attacking his university (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The Christian said, and I quote:
“It’s not Harvard, is it?”
Apparently, that was the best he could do. Ouch…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ehrman’s views are totally mainstream in NT scholarship. You’ll find them taught at Oxford & Cambridge, Harvard and Yale etc
LikeLike
Faiz
You said;
I have myself used Ehrman’s works in my discussions with Christians. In one such case a few years back, the Christian I was talking to actually questioned Ehrman’s expertise by attacking his university (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The Christian said, and I quote:
“It’s not Harvard, is it?”
Apparently, that was the best he could do. Ouch…
I say;
Is it Harvard they want? No Problem. This is a Harvard scholar who has Masters in Divinity(Christianity) who was a former Christian deacon and converted to Islam and shares Erhman ideas. How about that?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Faiz
I hope you are not implying that I have attacked Ehrman’s credentials? Craig hasn’t either – he has attacked his sloppy scholarship and his dishonesty i.e Ehrman seems to be deliberately trying to mislead lay readers. I, on the other hand have not attacked Ehrman at all.
Here’s an atheist who says Ehrman’s work is misleading….
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=27
In other words he kind of make mountains out of molehills, perhaps for sensationalist reasons, and exaggerates what are basically long-known problematic trivial facts about NT scholarship.
Here’s another guy – a Jesus myther – pointing out errors in Ehrman’s work
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6923
Both these guys hate Jesus Son of God as much as you chaps, but still find fault with Ehrman’s work. The latter seems angry because Ehrman actually confirms important historical facts about the risen Lord Jesus, Our Saviour and God, Lord of all the Universe, Eternal and Everlasting Son Of God, through whom all things were created.
This review of the latter review summarizes its main points nicely…
http://vridar.org/2012/04/20/richard-carriers-on-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/
Note the incendiary conclusion. Personally, I thought he was overly harsh and a little overly emotional, but some of his criticisms seem valid.
Burhanuddin1
Don’t you think that asking me if I believe that Jesus claimed divinity when you seem to have already presumed I’m a Christian is, well, kind of silly of you?
Paul
Really? You think Ehrman won? How could you?
LikeLike
LOL time-waster. Why don’t you start your own blog?
LikeLike
Paul
And you didn’t even read the linked articles.
LikeLike
So Duck how long u been a Christian?
LikeLike
Paul
Jesus always had his eye on me. I noticed him a couple of decades ago.
LikeLike
Ducky babe, why don’t yo start your own bog?
LikeLike
Bobby? Ducky?
They’re all coming out of the wood work
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you mean out of the sewer
LikeLike
Its a hard life isn’t it 😦
LikeLike
Dirk
There are plenty more people who are deeply critical about the Bible often pertaining to its textual reliability and historical reliability. If only by the fact that there are those who have a critical opinion meant that the work itself was not entirely solid. It rather begs the question as to why you still believe in Christianity and not some other faith?
If the fact that there are critics does not in and of itself cause you to doubt, then why should those who respect Dr Ehrman’s work do the same when presented with a few links? That’s hardly a scholarly response Mr…erm Dirk?
If YOU have criticisms of Dr Ehrman then why not present them YOURSELF rather than relying on the work of others. Don’t be lazy Mr….erm Dirk?
LikeLike
I don’t think Ducky will be commenting anymore
LikeLike
what a shame 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I will miss his insightful, intelligent comments.
LikeLike
Patrice
I’m happy to respond.
I don’t claim to be a NT historian, nor an expert on textual criticism – at best all I can do is approach the criticisms of the experts objectively and assess them on my own understanding. But that is what all of us do – unless we are experts in the field, we don’t have the means to assess the work of experts on the merits of their arguments alone.
It’s like buying a computer – you wouldn’t rely on the word of the salesperson alone but would most probably have done some research of your own so that you can qualify the claims of someone who is invested in trying to get you spend more.
So, as a non-expert, it is essential that I utilize other resources to assess the aspects of Ehrman’s work that fall outside of my experience and education. I don’t see what is wrong with that.
And I’m also happy to make this my last comment!
LikeLike
Dirk
You said;
It’s like buying a computer – you wouldn’t rely on the word of the salesperson alone but would most probably have done some research of your own so that you can qualify the claims of someone who is invested in trying to get you spend more.
So, as a non-expert, it is essential that I utilize other resources to assess the aspects of Ehrman’s work that fall outside of my experience and education. I don’t see what is wrong with that.
I say;
You are right, we all depend on scholars of a particular field to make our points sometimes. What we do here is to provide the name of the scholars and their credentials who are very expert in the their field. So far you just provided links without specifying the qualifications of the scholars.
No one will waste his time on such links. The only name you provided is William Lane Graig and he is not an NT scholar.
It is just like mentioning the names of Nabeel Quraish, Sam Samoun, David Wood and others who are bunch of liars and who are not Islamic scholars and could not speak Arabic instead of mentioning John Esposito of George town University, Karyn Armstrong, Lesly Hazelton, and many more who spent years researching on Islam and are Islamic scholars and non Muslims who speak and know Arabic to make a point about Islam.
This is a Harvard Scholar of Masters in Divinity who converted to Islam and will tell many of them left Christianity just like Erhman.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Dirks
You said;
It’s like buying a computer – you wouldn’t rely on the word of the salesperson alone but would most probably have done some research of your own so that you can qualify the claims of someone who is invested in trying to get you spend more.
I say;
You are absolutely right. But make sure not to consult someone who is against solid state drive because it is expensive and therefore against other experts who says it is a good investment. If a computer expert is against the proponents of the use of solid state drive, then what is his qualifications in computer engineering?
Certainly Nabeel Quraish or Sam Shamoun has no certificate in Islamic studies and therefore are not qualified to be consulted about Islam. Some people like Ken Temple rely on Nabeel Quraish’s dream. That is Satanic dream.
Paul Williams and Dr. Jerald Dirks did not dream because Satan influences dream a lot. Paul, Dirks and most Muslim converts use their common sense and research.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect
I think that Craig is well qualified to critique Ehrman’s work – he speaks ancient Greek like Ehrman. In fact, I believe that they both learned Greek from the same professor. Secondly, Ehrman has stepped out of his area of study – he is a textual critic, not a historian, which might explain why he misapplies the historical criteria. Furthermore, if you watch the Craig/Ehrman debate, you will see how he further steps outside of his field by drawing philosophical conclusions from historical evidence – something that he himself says a historian cannot do.
Aside from the more than adequately qualified Craig, there are several qualified critics of Ehrman who cite similar problems with his work – namely he overstates the evidence for his controversial positions, his popular work seems unrepresentative of his scholarly work (i.e. his academic work supports the belief that the NT we have now is close to the original, while his popular work misleads lay people into thinking the opposite), and so on.
I have links for this, but if even atheist critics who are both extremely hostile to Christianity and thus motivated to give Ehrman the benefit of the doubt, are not enough to persuade folks here that there is something fishy going on, then there is no point in providing links from more qualified critics. One of those atheist critics, however, is a professor of ancient Greek and Roman history. Yet even then, I think that Craig is more than qualified to critique Ehrman’s work – the fact that Ehrman agreed to debate him suggests that he considers Craig to be qualified enough.
That aside, there is a second part to that interview with Dirks (no relation!) in which he says that when he finished college, he no longer believed in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus, so it’s misleading to say that he was a “Christian” minister who converted to Islam.
LikeLike
“Ducky babe, why don’t yo start your own bog?”
Yes, how about a “WLC Fan Blog” … Here we see WLC and his three headed dog: … WLC and his three headed dog watching TV … WLC and his three headed dog at the kitchen table … WLC and his three headed dog going to church … WLC and his three headed dog meet Bart Ehrman and his cat …
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!
LikeLike