Bart Ehrman & Craig Evans 2012 Debate P1

Part one of two part debate on January 19 & 20, 2012. New Testament scholars Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans took part in two debate/dialogues on the topic: "Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the Historical Jesus?" The first night was at Saint Mary's University in Nova Scotia (Religious Studies Dept.) and the second night was at The Navigators of Canada; Acadia University (Divinity College); supported by churches across Nova Scotia. Debates were sponsored by ReligionSoup at www.religionsoup.ca.
Video discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Part 2 can be found here: • Bart Ehrman & Craig Ev...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
© Copyright 2012. Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this video without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman is strictly prohibited.

[@prisonss]

Only come across Bart this month, what a human he is....thank you. Amazing knowledge, well spoken

[@vincebuckley1499]

So you can say the bible isn't historically accurate, but not that it's historically unreliable? Boy, the mental gymnastics it takes to be a Christian who knows biblical history are exhausting.

[@shawndurham297]

Debate starts at 4:50

[@thetawaves48]

Bart is the only one who can handle defining his terms.

[@guevarajon2011]

I appreciate the well formed, supported and logical arguments of Dr. Ehrman. Dr. Evans beats 'around the bush' too much and does not address the actual question. Dr. Evans' 'arguments' are too much ad populum, ad hominem, and not as sound. I would have to agree with Ehrman in the arguments he presented.

[@azad1718]

Jonathan Guevara this another form evading answer as Christian so called scholars have no answer for their nonsense beliefs . Before studying bible vertically dr Bart was also ignorant but after research he accepted the truth that bible can not be trustworthy as it has no original and countless differences between available manuscripts which are written foreign Greek language. Jesus was neither Greek nor spoke Greek!

[@fredmiddel2162]

@@azad1718 Given that Jesus would have (to some extent) "been in business" as a carpenter (or stonemason), and given that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, how could you assume that Jesus didn't speak Greek?

[@mkoschier]

Fred Middel the answer is nobody knows same goes for example for the question was he literate

[@pinball1970]

@@fredmiddel2162 Jesus could have understood Greek yes.

[@nathanjora7627]

@@fredmiddel2162 English is the lingua Franca of Europe, go ask a rural carpenter how good his English is, I can promise you not a whole lot of them will even understand English in many countries, and that’s despite modern standards of education. Why the hell would you think a first century carpenter from some village in judea would know greek, the language of the elites and the travelers, those who traveled throughout the Empire mind you, not just within your own country. Hell, I wouldn’t expect Italian carpenters to speak Greek.

[@littlelala]

I think this is the most gracious and respectful debate of Dr. Ehrman. He was Amazing as usual :)

[@niccolea2086]

Lil Lala I think back to some of my debates and what a disaster. Ends up just being an emotional argument. I love watching ppl leave the emotional garbage at the door and just simply use their knowledge and wit.

[@jbdbibbaerman8071]

@@niccolea2086 From what I've seen of debates from different people, it's an oddly specific mindset and way of thinking that I don't think I could ever do. At least that's what it seems like to me

[@theRandy712]

I took a nap and woke up and the intro giving Dr Evans' credits was only halfway through.

[@wagsman9999]

Wow...Dr. Ehrman is an amazing debater.

[@dmmw125]

I notice that everyone who debates Bart basically moves to his position while pretending that he's arguing something else.

[@wagsman9999]

Wouldn’t the simple fact that we have to have these debates question the divine origins of the text? Wouldn’t a holy book delivered from a supernatural overlord leave no questions? Why would god leave doubts on the table? What would be the divine purpose of doubts?

[@andrewmarkmusic]

Exactly! I've been saying this for years!

[@theyeticlutch3486]

Freewill bro you just dont understand! Lol I ask the same thing all the time and thats the answer im given... freewill and choice

[@TheSmithDorian]

I think that they don't want to debate its divine origin because, technically, it isn't supposed to have one. While many Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God - this is not a claim that the Bible itself makes. Take the New Testament as an example. Other than a part of the Book of Revelation, none of the books of the NT claim that they are the word of God. None of their authors claim that God told them to write their books and none of the authors claim to be writing things that God told them, None of them claim to be writing under 'inspiration' or that their writings are 'God breathed'. God never asked for the Bible to be produced. He never told anybody which books should be included or excluded from the NT canon and he never gave anybody the criteria by which Holy Scripture could be identified. None of the NT authors makes the claim that their work should be recognized as Holy Scripture and none of them knew when they were writing, that their work would at form part of a Bible centuries later. God never gives the nod of approval for the 27 books that we have in the NT canon today or gives any guidance as to which versions of the each of the texts should be taken as having authority. This isn't one of those circular arguments where the claim is that the Bible is God's word because it says that it is and as the Word of God can't be wrong, the Bible must be God's word. The Bible doesn't claim to be the word of God .. it's just Christians that do.

[@tonyturek4596]

@@TheSmithDorian Very sound observation ... I always said even when I was a Christian that Paul never thought he was writing Scripture, he was just writing letters to churches ... I also feel that Saul's freewill was compromised when he was knocked off his horse by Jesus himself to stop persecuting Christians and become the apostle Paul ... makes a good story though

[@Writer538]

@@TheSmithDorian Exactly, although I would argue that the verse from 2 Timothy 3:16 that you alluded to is a more stronger attempt to claim it is the Word of God. But it utterly fails because 1. what became the scripture called the N.T. didn't yet exist as such, and therefore 2. it must have referred to the Hebrew Scriptures (or Greek), and 3. it's completely circular and empty to use such a claim within the bible to prove the Bible is the Word of God.

[@shimmy2425]

So basically you two agree on everything... except for the definition of "historically accurate."

[@julio14335]

Im glad most Christian apologists are now admiting the descripencies in the Bible...thats a good starts.

[@sammylacen1062]

Julio Kosters as many agnostics, athiests, etc., maximies trivial driscrepnaces and ignore historical and archeological data.

[@Princessmmviii]

Not really Discrepancies...simply different interpretations. The BIBLE doesn't have discrepancies... only the differences in the people who interpret them. Scholars are PEOPLE and people see things differently....the BIBLE IS THE CONSTANT...it doesn't change. Any mistakes are simply the human understanding.

[@andeez4663]

@@Princessmmviii Utter rubbish, and you know it

[@carlovanelli1694]

@@Princessmmviii You're talking complete nonsense. By your logic, there can never be any discrepancies ever in any study or field. The reality is when you have one source claiming that Jesus was crucified on a certain day and another source claiming that he died on a different day, you have a flat contradiction. This is not a mistake of human understanding. It's a literal discrepancy.

[@robertredstone5432]

@@Princessmmviii So? which interpretation is correct then? I don't think as they both stipulated, there are differences among bible scholars specially textual critics, they all both agree that there are discrepancies among the variants. Only closed minded people are the ones that don't accept it.

[@nates9029]

What the hell, Craig Evans claims that he would say that all the Gospels are historically accurate while admitting that he would say that none of them accurately quote Jesus or tell the events accurately in chronological order?! So what exactly is historically accurate about them?! If I am reading a book about Leonardo Da Vinci, which I currently am, and it doesn't get the chronology of his life and events in his life accurate and it doesn't quote him and others around him accurately then how would it be considered historically accurate, because it is based on an actual person who really lived?! It makes no damn sense.

[@chrismc1967]

Great discussion between two learned men, who seem to actually enjoy debating each other. I like the lighthearted nature of their conversation time together, and the format of this debate as well. Good stuff.

[@rayjr96]

Craig is also a master at dancing around an answer, he should have been a car salesmen

[@iThinkBiblically]

Craig Evans opening argument is incredible. The comparison between the Synoptic Gospels & Act to the Gnostic writings is incredibly informative when seeking to understand which gospels are the correct one. I am honestly strengthened in my faith By Dr Craig Evans.

[@TheSmithDorian]

The problem with Evan's appeal to authority when he cites the views of various NT scholars in support of his case, is that there are no experts on the historical accuracy of the gospels. We don't have any original gospel manuscripts and we don't know exactly what events occured in 1st Century Judea. Because of this, no scholar's assertions can be checked and proven to be ether right or wrong. What the scholars that Evan's names should be saying is ..we don't know if the gospels are reliable / accurate or not. We believe that they are but we don't actually know.

[@christfollower5713]

Its not a problem of lack of original manuscripts , what if i gave u the Original Scriptures Old and New testament , why not that what is in it a lie and not true , why trust the Prophets and Apostles and God ? Even if u have the Originals , u still have a space to be skeptic about the Apostles and Prophets themselves? At the end u need to trust God and his disciples , in addition God gave us the best work of antiquity transmitted to us , his holy bible that shows us the way to Life

[@PC-vg8vn]

You could use the same argument about any ancient writing, yet historians today largely accept those writings as basically accurate, taking into account how people wrote history then (which is not quite the same as today). And I would ask the question - if the original parchments were found, would you suddenly become a believer? I would also make the point that in one of his books Ehrman said if he and his old (late) professor, Bruce Metzger, were put in a room together to decide on the original text of the New Testament, they would have very few disagreements on the final text. And Metzger was probably the leading evangelical textual expert of his generation.

[@nathanjora7627]

@@christfollower5713 It partially is a lack of original manuscripts actually. Having an original of anything doesn’t prove anything, if you had the original Coran or the original Bhagavad-Gita you wouldn’t believe them either. But not having the original is actually cause to doubt as well, when you know there’s been room for fabrications, falsifications, exaggeration, errors, etc, which we know occurred. Not only that, but the original gospels wouldn’t be perfect biographies still, and therefore still unreliable, needing interpretation and study to reveal the kernels of historical truth. For example, even if we had the originals, and they were word for word the same as the ones we have today, there’d still be contradictions between them, there’d still be false claims, like Jesus claiming whoever believes in him can perform miracles, there’d still be more than dubious historical events, like the census that caused Joseph to go to Bethlehem. So you’re right, the gospels are at base far too mythicized anyway to be reliable, it’s just that not having the originals make it worse. Also, trusting god ? I can’t trust someone who never speaks to me, never works in any way I can discern, and proved himself to be unreliable if he existed given how many people prayed for totally selfless reasons, with much faith in their hearts, and still got nothing.

[@VuyoArt]

Great exchange between two great men.💫💯

[@dunklaw]

I find it quite comical that Craig Evans claims that all the scholars take the same viewpoint as him. Has he not read "the authentic gospel of Jesus" by Geza Vermes who he references specifically by name.

[@juhamikkonen]

An interesting debate. Thank you for this video!

[@Cowboy-uw7jz]

Smart person starts at 42:00

[@carloslagua9691]

It is always beneficial to listen other's ideas and conclusions, they both offered insides to analyze.

[@rayjr96]

The bottom line is this, if god wanted us to know what historically happened and wanted us to believe in it he would have known this would be an issue and could have prevented it. It’s all ancient hearsay and although the evidence for a man named Jesus can be argued for the real question is was he Devine and is his daddy real? I don’t see a rationale argument

[@NickAlbano253]

This was a great debate, and I respect both scholars. It’s really too bad they didn’t decide to have another one.

[@jacie4877]

Mr. Evans was taking the questions portion to give a sermon. Ridiculous.

[@tiagoscherer1158]

As it has been seen a thousand times in a thousand different debates, the atheist or agnostic asks a question, the theist goes on a fishing expedition and comes back with pointless comments that do not answer the question in any way. This is not an opinion, it is simply what happened on this debate pretty much every time Dr Bart asked a simple question. So much for: "1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion ....... "

[@cs.0903]

I think the larger question is: what constitutes a historically reliable account? I am convinced that even today, in modern times, there is no such thing. People cannot recount history without passing judgement on it and as Prof Ehrman states in his latest book Jesus Before the Gospels it memory is always a social construction.

[@Piratehome1]

+C. Schmitz Will you elaborate? For example, I own a modern biography of Walt Disney, which is, in fact, a historical account. I take it, given what you posted, that you would characterize the Disney bio as not a "historically reliable account." So what, exactly, does that mean for the biography? Does it mean that no single, solitary thing in the biography - not a single setting, event, date, or quotation - is historically reliable? Should I put the biography on my shelf of fiction novels?

[@gohramkhan4178]

Rather the question should be if a book claimed to be God's word should not contain errors, contradictions, improbabilities . Moreover , salvation depends on the same book ( bible). Therefore, the larger question should be that the bible must be inerrant, infallible otherwise the bible is not from God and not trustworthy.

[@gregrhodes3608]

Evans is so vague with his answers to historicity... it is deceiving. lying.. Either the gospels are historically accurate or they are not.. answer the question...He simply refuses to answer any question without turning it into a extremely vague answer...

[@arsinicavasile1109]

Both scholars did a good job. My point of view is that of Craig Evans, perhaps because I am a Christian, although I find it rational especially after I read different works of another scholar, NT Wright. Bart Ehrman is also a very good historian!

[@livingpicture]

I think Bart may have missed where the wise men of Matthew 2 show up at a different time and place than do the shepherds in Luke. Jesus is already a young child by the events of Matthew 2, and his family is now living in a house. No contradiction whatsoever with Luke. #readinghorizontally

[@jonathanh954]

Which scholars did Evans list that would agree that the Gospel writers did not write fiction? E.P. Sanders says elsewhere, " Gospel writers did not wildly invent material. They developed it, shaped it and directed it in the ways they wished." Source: Sanders, E.. The Historical Figure of Jesus (Kindle Locations 3589-3590). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[@Rekonsyl]

Interesting debate. Craig Evens isn't really making much sense.

[@dohpam1ne]

Evans should become a politician lol

[@htmlman1]

So many appeals to authority from one individual...

[@davidpope7532]

Excellent stuff. What I see in the discrepancies he mentioned is that the gospels are for instruction. I would approach one individual a lot differently than another. He mentions luke a lot. Well.luke was a lawyer. He was giving a much different account to a much different audience than Matthew. He was speaking to the Jews.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

david, we don't know who wrote the NT - they are anonymous, the names have been added later and thus their professions

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Ehrman: There it is, catch the bird! Evans: Well, if I beat around the bush, maybe we can catch a bird later. Ehrman: Look, is there! Is staring at you! Evans: I will distract its attention with loud noises.

[@jordanduran964]

If your so smart then you debate Craig yourself

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

Dr. Evans is clearly an educated and respectful scholar, and he is mostly rational about his approach to this issue...but for all the circumlocution he does concerning the Gospels, it appears that the final point of his argument is a reliance on the premise that "history" does not mean "history", he appears to want to redefine things or even argue about whether our modern conception of " historically reliable sources" is even a valid statement. It appears he would like to have a philosophical debate about the meaning of history rather than a scholarly debate about the New Testament.

[@t95mwp]

Bible is not word of God, Gospel according Mathew, Luke and etc is why according.Jesus preached gospels but there was not book. This is all done by Paul and Constantine, historical Jesus was prophet so these two made pagan beliefs as Jesus practice.

[@anitareasontobelieve7375]

I don't know about Constantine but I agree it's gospel according to Paul, Like etc...except Luke didn't write luke. And Paul said it was HIS V Gospel!

[@pearuh496]

None...none of what you said makes sense historically or theologically.

[@SaadBinAlamgir3345]

Bible was never a word of God! That's why question out... You'll get kicked

[@DManCAWMaster]

I think Ehrman did a better job here although I did think Craig had interesting views and I came out learning something

[@TheExastrologer]

Dr. Evans does the gospels no favors. He offers speculative ideas on how they were written forgetting that discrepancies in most cases have other explanations. Anyone hearing this should check out the blog/writings of Lydia McGrew. She has written on this.

[@nagaseminarian]

Doesn’t sound like a debate-- both agree to almost everything.

[@nathanjora7627]

There is actually a debate, problem is that it’s not a debate around the historicity of the gospels, it’s a debate about trying to know if Evan can understand that if a text has inconsistencies, contradictions, and inventions, then it’s not historically accurate even if it has enough true informations in it to allow us to guess an overall portrait of the central figure of the text.

[@VIIStar]

Does Evans have any other argument other than from authority? Also 90% of the debate is that the two don't agree on what 'historically accurate' means.

[@anitareasontobelieve7375]

The hard liner can't agree on accord bc they don't want to admit the gospels don't tell same stories that contradict, but want to claim inerrant bible.

[@nathanjora7627]

@@anitareasontobelieve7375 In the case of Evans, as far as his introduction is concerned, it seems like his disagreement comes from how he defines historically accurate. Sure, the gospels may give you the gist of what Jesus said and did, so in that sense Marc at least is « historically accurate » in the sense of giving us a basic idea of who he was, what he taught, and around where did he live, and Erhman would agree with that. But then comes the word games where he conflates « historically accurate » in the sense of « overall Okay » with « made by the rules of antique historiography », who he explicitly says don’t correspond to actual reality, but instead add or change elements for the purpose of giving a better idea of some element of the life of the figure being written about, which may be « historically accurate » in the sense of giving us the gist, but is false in the sense of « historically, didn’t happen », which is what Erhman talks about. When Erhman talks about historically accurate, what he is saying is « actually historically accurate », meaning « what could we deduce really happened, following rules such that if we had a camera and went back in time, we’d catch our deductions on tape ». And following those rules, the ones that tell us what we’re actually interested in, the gospels aren’t historically accurate.

[@jdewit8148]

There is a reason why there are so many discrepancies; There is no truth in the storyline as it is presented. Christ himself knew this would happen and explains that anyone apart from the original twelve would need to rely on the "Parables Only". Matthew 13:10-17

[@theyeticlutch3486]

31:30 What other sources are there for jesus other than the gospels for scholars to even use? And then he goes on to say when someone doesnt understand they just dont know how to interpret it correctly? Nonsense

[@insanisstultitia3119]

The fact is that none of the books in the collective folk tale of the Hebrew people called the BIBLE or TORAH on their self could not stand to on themselves to be accurate of historical fact, let alone science. If most of it is mythical with heroism and conflict of tall tales, then the whole thing is not the product of a facts but totally fiction.

[@tedgrant2]

If you go inside any tomb to see if it is empty, I bet you a million dollars it's not empty.

[@ramigilneas9274]

😮

[@imamingenuus4466]

I Live in "Nova Scotia" and would have loved to have attended this debate. I have read your book "Forged" A very informative treaties. I keep it on my cell phone for reference.. I would like to see a debate with a member of our "Original Indigenous Peoples" in what is called the "Black Community" I think you would enlighten many of them to some confusion of the Gospels.

[@KS-es4ph]

Notice that Bart never tells us what he means by "Historically Unreliable". Does he mean "100 %" unreliable? No ancient historical event is 100% accurately documented. Craig repeatedly clarifies that the Bible has contradictions, but overall consistent. He uses the phrase "consistent in a qualified sense"

[@gohramkhan4178]

Problem is , you Christians are claiming your bible is inerrant, infallible, words of god . Therefore , your bible should be free of errors , contradictions. If there are errors, contradictions, your bible is corrupted , changed, Fabricated , interpolated by man and therefore not trustworthy as god can not be the author of confusion.

[@anggidamarabengkulu3190]

Consistently contradictif?

[@arthurmontana8791]

Your claim that Craig was "consistent" in asserting that the gospels are "consistent in a qualified sense" is totally false. In fact, Craig agreed that the gospels are historically INACCURATE "in a certain qualified sense." That's the opposite of saying that the gospels are "consistent in a qualified way." Starting at 1:24.09 ,Ehrman asked Craig: "Am I right that you agree that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the gospels? Craig answered: "Yes." Ehrman then asked: "And do you agree that, if there are discrepancies between two accounts, they cannot both be historically accurate?" Craig answered: "In a certain qualified sense; yes." Craig's own words prove that your claim that Craig was "consistent" in asserting the consistency of the gospels was and always will be totally, utterly, false.

[@JohnSmith-ms4xd]

i dont see how "historically unreliable" is any more vague than "consistent in a qualified sense"

[@parrishsells0116]

At the 1:05 mark is an example of my issue with theologians. He, HE changes the question to best suite his argument not address the agreed upon question.

[@damirage2010]

At least you are honest with yourself and able to see the truth. First time I see a person who deserves a degree usually they puzzle me with if the degree holders were never educated how would they be.Full respect to you may god guide u as its obvious you are searching or the truth

[@georgemoncayo8313]

There is a book called the popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible and in it includes a direct refutation to ehrmans errors.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

www.christianbook.com/popular-handbook-archaeology-and-the-bible/norman-geisler/9780736944854/pd/944854?product_redirect=1&Ntt=944854&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

[@jacopman]

George Moncayo Written by two Christian apologists.................more propaganda from those with an agenda to be right before they ask the questions................get a book where the archaeologists discoveries guide them to conclusions by the evidence......not steering the data or manipulating the artifacts to come to a conclusion they want and must have. A secular book on archaeology of any credibility is not trying to prove the bible or disprove it either............they only want the data and artifact to guide them to an accurate conclusion as possible................not the conclusion they must have and need to defend such as those two apologetic ivory tower twits in the book you named.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

It's not just archaeology that clearly confirms much of the reliability of the Bible's historicity but it also has a direct refutation to some of ermans errors and if you wanna hear debates from both sides go to aomin.org Dr. James Whit has debated well known atheists and people who attack the Bible including ehrman.

[@CoG7TVBirminghamUK]

Presenting with passion doesn't prove truth

[@nassera1364]

Hi Prof. Bart Did you try to write a horizontal Bible for publishing? Or one Gospel with the only common for the right stories. You have all the data ready in your hand. It will be good for christian. Think about it.

[@Jan_von_Gratschoff]

"Or else Craig has been praying" :D

[@ISLAMislam-od5lc]

so there are historical evidences of the existence of jesus , but not claiming himself god as in john , the logical conclusion must be he was a man, a prophète no more .

[@dmmw125]

Yep because there are no prophets in any religion just deluded people that tries to make sense of their world when they lack the science we have.

[@tomgoff7887]

@@dmmw125 Or rational people who use absurd religious claims as a path to personal wealth and power. Muhammed springs to mind.

[@mr.simmons8584]

Yall funny. My King Arthur can whoop your Paul Bunyan 😂

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Are you French?

[@niccolea2086]

ISLAM islam that he was “possibly” a man because there’s no evidence one way or the other.

[@J-Rod73]

Craig Evans debates and defends the gospels like a true textbook and typical Christian apologist. He has lame excuses for the huge issues that the gospels present. One second he's agreeing with Bart, and when Bart tries to confirm if he agrees he stumbles and sounds like a typical apologist. Is this the best any so called Christian scholar has to bring to the table??? I'm not impressed.

[@ardalla535]

Yep, that's pretty much what apologists do. They don't have much to work with. They rely on the same weak arguments over and over and expect their audience to think, "Wow! Brilliance! Never heard that before. Give me Jesus or give me DEATH!"

[@backtonature3464]

+ardalla535 what a poor understanding of the bible bro

[@deloresm7494]

Jay Rod of course, because you didn't come upon the debate without preconceived view.

[@TheADDFiles-yk4dc]

This is a useful debate between two distinguished scholars. I think the “winner” of the debate is likely determined by whichever philosophical camp in which you find yourself. I do think Bart fails to understand that an event like the crucifixion can have multiple eyewitnesses with different accounts of the event. In other words, the words spoken by Jesus in one Gospel can differ from the words he spoke in another Gospel. How? He could have spoken all the words recorded in all the Gospels. The author of Mark may not have heard all the words Jesus spoke; the authors of Matthew and Luke might have heard different words spoken moments before or after those spoken words recorded in Mark. It’s like a car accident with multiple witnesses; not all the events of the accident will be seen by all of the witnesses. Some witnesses will see and hear some things and other witnesses will see and hear others. The event is the same event despite differing accounts of the event by different witnesses.

[@timtaylor6804]

Professor Bart D. Ehrman is a very highly educated and respected Biblical scholar at Chapel Hill University in North Carolina. He has studied early texts of the Bible in Greek, and every other language available over his entire career and is considered a top expert on the historicity of the Bible and early Christianity. He grew up a Christian, went to Christian schools and Universities. He was once a devoted believer, evangelical and Jesus freak just like most of the folks in this group. Now, after all his intense study, prayers and thoughts on the matter he knows Christianity better than anyone -- and he is an atheist. Anyone who reads and studies the Bible with objectivity and an open mind will conclude likewise.

[@stevoph7]

I think he is an agnostic. I have read most of his books.

[@J-Rod73]

Steven Hammersmith An agnostic is an atheist. 99.9% of atheists would agree that if there were better evidence for an existence of any deity, they'd have no problem believing in it. Isn't that what the so called definition of an agnostic is??? So really, if you don't believe due to the lack of good evidence, then that's is the same as being atheist. I personally think ALOT of so called "agnostics" are just too afraid of giving themselves the title of atheist because of the negative stereotype society (American to be specific) has given that title.

[@Braglemaster123]

Tim Taylor So what, he’s full of BS.

[@dorson723]

So Craig was saying I saw the dead body of bible but it is not dead.

[@damirage2010]

The problem with all the Christians sitting in the audience is that they have never done their HW of reading the bible inherited laziness of Jesus has died for our sins lets just relax.stop read ur bible o come to the truth

[@LuckyLucky-yw8yh]

Bart ehrman is very intelligent

[@carracci7665]

I am not a Christian but its sloppy to say, 'Mathew invents...' 'Mark invents...' etc The invention is NOT likely done by the New Testament writers, the momentum and evolution of the narratives are structured by the Jesus community, over the decades following his death. The gospel writers are manifesting the beliefs of first century religious communities NOT instigating them.

[@Gnomefro]

carracci The problem with your approach is that we know the authors of NT are inventing. Let me give you an example: Matthew has an account of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys. This is a bizarre scene and the other gospel authors have him riding in on one. What is the cause of this difference? Well, it is that they're all making stuff up to fit something they regard as prophecy from OT and Matthew, being slightly more illiterate than the other writers, does not understand the OT idioms used in the passage and thinks it talks about two donkeys, rather than being a poetic expression using repetition. In any case, this kind of belief is not something that just forms in the community. It's what happens when a lone writer sits with OT in one hand and mentally masturbates about how to write a story that best fits prophecy in there with the other. Matthew even points out how well it fits, but unfortunately, he didn't understand the source material. You also need to realize that most people were illiterate at the time, so there would be no religious community to speak of, but mostly authorities handing things down to gullible illiterates. In any case, you seem to assume that the gospels were regarded as history in the sense we think of it to begin with, but this might not be the case. If you read Randel Helm's book Gospel Fictions, he will confront you with an avalanche of aspects of NT that are effectively just reinterpretations of OT and his thesis is that the gospel writers had a religious conviction that such reinterpretation and interpolation could lead them to know what had to have happened in the past. It's a worthless and insane methodology, of course, but unless one is to claim they were just lying, that seems to be the most plausible hypothesis to me. I can certainly not see a gradual development from Paul's rejection of the Law, to Mark's embracing of it, to further discarding of it in later gospels happening within one coherent community. It just makes no sense. Diverse communities that had different theologies, largely made up by/adapted by local authorities, is a much better explanation. You then can explain the eventual compilation of the bible due to a pressing need for to confront Marcion, where they might not care about the differences in theology that were there as much as they cared about unity towards a common enemy. The concept of the trinity is evidence of exactly how little they cared.

[@carracci7665]

'Its a worthless and insane methodology of course'... again name me a pre-modern author who has the "correct" methodology your looking for? 'Methodology' is a scientific concept, that only begins to emerge with Taiko Brahe and Galileo in the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century. For example, Aristotle rejected methodological approaches because he thought they minimized the purity of direct empirical observation. Pliny says that there are floating islands on a north Italian lake? Whats important, his methodology, the truth of his statement, or why Pliny believed such things in the first place - that is the culture such thoughts came out of? Incidentally both Pliny and Aristotle are among the 'elite' you speak of.

[@dunklaw]

"pre-understandings" get in the way of real biblical historical research & it would appear that Craig Evans is heavily reliant on this type of hermeneutic theory.

[@jamessoltis5407]

...Margaret Mitchell’s ‘Gone With The Wind’ makes use of actual people, events, and geographic locations yet it is a work of fiction nonetheless.

[@PC-vg8vn]

But then you could apply the same argument about any ancient writing. Does that mean all such writings are all bunkum? Historians would strongly disagree with such an assertion.

[@juanpablotique]

The different eye witnesses of a traffic accident (six or seven eye witness) it doesn't mean that the event didn't occurred at all.

[@wynnpettitt]

The difference is that the gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

Gospels not written by eye witnesses Also Jesus did not say worship me. So it's important to know what his teachings really were.

[@coolkahil]

the problem is when one says the accident was involved two blue cars, another one says two red cars, and another one says two white cars, then one says, no it was two bikes. who is telling the truth? yet they're not even eye witnesses

[@deloresm7494]

Professor Ehrman....one cliche for you...." Can't see the forest for the trees" its as simple as that.

[@ISLAMislam-od5lc]

if jesus infancy was unknown what is the proof of his miraculous birth !

[@magdielvalencia9477]

same as mohama went to heaven in a horse...

[@alexly627]

When you take 10 hrs to answer a simple question....you know this guy doesn't have a straight answer

[@theheisenberger742]

Sometimes questions have answers that need more explaining then you would expect

[@briangray925]

It hurt when I saw that the claim of Bible inerrancy was incorrect. I realized I had been deceived by man. Some intentionally, others unknowingly, but deceived none the same. Then I realized the stories that travelled thousands of years( to me )came from men that were trying their best to carry a message of Good News, despite difficulty in describing deity in the harsh world we live in. So the recall or the story it's self has inconsistencies or is off slightly. Jesus died in the gospels if one had Him escape to Africa that would be a historical inaccuracy about Jesus to me. I believe in intelligent design and the God of the Bible despite the flaws. If you want selfies and audio/video proof you will be disappointed. If you saw some one walk on water, you would remember that even years later though some facts would be lost to time or recall. If you studied for years you would remember plenty of what the Master said, even years later.Ehrman's real problem is angry with God for all the suffering he sees in the world. So not trusting God nor the students of Christ to deliver a reliable account is just his excuse. God bless.

[@arthurmontana8791]

You wrote: "Ehrman's real problem is that he is angry with God..." With the stroke of a pen, you assert a "problem" with another human being, and then you conjure up the cause for that problem. This is a psychological projection that is probative of your anger at Dr. Ehrman. This truth does not reveal the reason for your anger, and, unlike you have done to Dr. Ehrman, I will not speculate on the etyology of your anger. "You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:5.

[@MrSanbonsakura]

1:08:20 Q- tradition ? There is NO EVIDENCE OF IT. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[@PC-vg8vn]

'Q' meaning source is simply viewed as that - a common source of the mostly sayings of jesus that occur in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. As such it is a reasonable view, though of course other scholars disagree. Though it should be noted that Luke in his introduction mentions other writings which were already in circulation when he put pen to parchment, so Q or something like it could very well be what he was referring to.

[@infectedpriest9174]

If you go toe to toe with Mr. Bart Ehrman you will lose.

[@PC-vg8vn]

He's a good speaker but it's a shame much of what he says is pretty much nonsense, and very naive. See my comment above re Jairus' daughter which he makes so much of.

[@clay2424]

They took so long explaining Dr. Evan's credits just so he could stand up there and tarnish the reputation of every institution he has attended and every award he has received. If these are the people graduating from divinity schools, why should I take a second of my day to listen to what anyone of these "Phd" divinity school bible scholars have to say?

[@ahighhorseman]

In two debates I've watched with Craig Evans, he has failed to use his question period to actually question the other person.

[@ironcharioteer6660]

Craig A, Evans looks very uncomfortable during this debate, not engaged at all.

[@gregrhodes3608]

Bart Erhman basically dismisses the NT as fiction... he is a small strand away from being a mythicist... (which I am ).... he gets so close, then realizes it, (can't go that far)..which makes his arguments circular..

[@PC-vg8vn]

Have you read 'historyforatheists'? It's a useful history blog.

[@ironcharioteer6660]

amateur psycological evaluation of craig a. evans, crossed arms most of the time. he is on the defensive. not having honest discussion or debate

[@Merih98614]

Professor Ehrman debates always on the legitimacy of the Bible writers as personal Witnesses of Jesus Christ. Whether they heard Jesus Christ preach or got the stories from other sources. Well, my question to you is then, what about if we concentrate on the witness of John, the beloved disciple, and his Epistles? Would that prove to you the Truth about God and Jesus Christ? Or would you excavate the GOSPEL according to John in comparison with his Epistles and the book of Revelation, to try to discredit the Christian Faith? Isn't that AMAZING that or may be "why" the Gospel according to John, greatest and the oldest personal witness of Jesus Christ, is almost completely different in content and approach from the other three witnesses?

[@ramigilneas9274]

Well, the gospel of John was written when John was most likely already dead. Even if we knew who wrote the gospels, even if they were written a month after Jesus died, even if your evidence was much much better... this wouldn’t make the stories true, they would still contain a lot of nonsense that we know didn’t happen.

[@georgepaul5843]

Poor Bart again has to engage with yet another biblical fanatic, espousing herewith compilation of the New Testament as the expression of Jesus.

[@carracci7665]

The historical Jesus is like the historical Socrates. The au priori of a lot of scholarship doesn't ring true to me. That one starts from the perspective of 'reliability' leads us no where. Rather we should look at the culture of the New Testament from the perspective of what the authors say. Otherwise we just arrive at the same perplexing 'dead end' that a debate over Xenophon vs Plato leads us to regarding who is the 'real' Socrates.

[@Gnomefro]

carracci "The historical Jesus is like the historical Socrates." How? Did Socrates perform miracles? Did he cast out demons? Socrates is way more probable than Jesus a priori. And moreover, we actually don't need a historical Socrates to appreciate everything about him. His existence actually isn't important. In addition to this, we don't have a gradually developing account from a celestial Socrates to a historical one, like the case is for Jesus, with Paul claiming that all his information about Jesus comes from revelation and from his creative reinterpretation of OT(Jesus "speaking" through OT). It's not useless to try to figure out if a character is real anyway. If we were to take your approach to its ultimate conclusion we'd have to interpret Zeus according to the perspective of the cultists who believed in him. I don't even know how you can think that will lead anywhere useful. Certainly you're not doing history anymore with that approach.

[@carracci7665]

So then did Socrates really look like Silenus the drunken old man carried about in Dionysus' entourage? Or does Plato simply make this comparison in his Symposium because of Silenus' association with wisdom? Unless like Akhenaten we find his body, how will we know? 2. Does Socrates have a 'daemon' that he speaks to or guides him as in Xenophon; then why is he ignored by Plato? 3. Does Socrates give analogies about cavalrymen to the extent that Xenophon mentions but Plato doesn't, or is Xenophon, being a soldier, putting these analogies in Socrates mouth for his audience OR has he paid more attention to these analogies because he is a soldier? 4. What about Plato's later more metaphysical Socrates? Or how much of Plato's earlier Socrates was real in what he said anyway in the first place? ie comparative to Paul and Jesus vs the Christ. Xenophon's Socrates is more earthy than Plato's original. If one doesn't know the answers to the above, one can't conclude in a true vs untrue manner who the historical Socrates WAS?

[@Merih98614]

How can we argue that John 21:24 is not an explicit portrayal of who the writer was? The very eye witness. Can't a papyrus as old as the 4th century be reliable?

[@carracci7665]

What IS 'historically accurate' in pre-modern literature?? Suetonius on Caligula's hedonistic behavior?? Plato's account of Socrates dialogues/debates?? That Socrates is described in the Symposium as looking like Silenus in Bachus' entourage?? We ultimately are left with the conclusion -surely - that 'historical accuracy' as we understand it is an anachrohism to impose on a pre-modern world whose acounts will always refuse our SEPERATION of events in time from didatic cultural symbolism. The scholarship needs to get away from trying to disentangle what was for pre-modern authors a unity. Understand the discrepancies as part of the historical 'truth' - remembering that history is not THE past. Rather it is actually mostly very sincere interpretations and accounts of lived experience within a given cultural paradigm.

[@Gnomefro]

carracci Very often ancient accounts can be corroborated with archaeology. In those cases we might produce extremely good reasons to regard something as THE past. as for Suetonius account of Caligula, it's obviously made up slander. Hell, even Suetonius apparently realizes this as he writes something like "And if the reader finds this implausible, here's another pile of even more unsubstantiated drivel about Caligula plotting to assassinate everyone and having a written account of it in his poison chest". The trick is to realize that we can often tell the difference between credible and unreliable sources - both trivially as in the case of Suetonius, and with great difficulty as may be the case if we need archaeological corroboration. In any case, historians obviously regard the sources themselves as part of history, but that's not what they're interested in. They want to know what probably really happened. If that's not the goal, then "history" reduces to being literary criticism and is essentially worthless to humanity.

[@carracci7665]

So historical fact or fiction: was Cato really dangled out the window by his feet at the age of four by an angry friend of his father without crying as Plutarch recounts, or was this a biographical metaphor for his Stoicism? Find me a pre-modern author who does not integrate metaphor with history? Understanding the TYPOLOGICAL NATURE of viewing both the past and experience in pre-modern history is the historians job. How that "objectively" functioned, is the historians aim, not creating anachronistic demarcations between the two. This "objectivity" is not then mere literary criticism, we are interested in cultural perceptions of the world and how they functioned specific to a given place and time, not the ultimately dead end question of their objectified veracity.

[@omarsalomcanaloficial3330]

Dr Evans...is saying that , because someone believes x and have studied all his life, then it is truth what he says. This time of argument and guys move me even more to be an agnostic...

[@PC-vg8vn]

Yes I think the way he comes across is unfortunate because many of his books are really quite good. Ive found that with a number of scholars - crap at public speaking/debate, but good writers. They should stick to their strengths.

[@RonJohn63]

Regarding verisimilitude: if one were to write a novel set in NYC, it could mention Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo but still be un-true, since it's... a novel. (No, I am not saying that the synoptic gospels are novels.)

[@josephsalyman1863]

Romans 11:18to25who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator who is blessed for ever.-24 wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts. and instead of worshiped the glorious ever living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people or birds and animals and snakes. They knew NOTGod they glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven agains all ungodliness and unrigheousness; who push the truth away from themselves. .Romans1:30They are haters of God, and Insolent proud and boastful they are forever inventing new way of sinning are UNRIGHEOUSNESS to God they refuse to understand, they are fully aware of God’s death penalty yet they go right ahead, and set up idol and worship and do them anyway and worse yet,they encourage others to do them too.

[@mrmorpheus9707]

Ehrman. Is a Beast!!!

[@arusimalaysia1136]

I swear

[@tedgrant2]

Jesus couldn't have been the son of God because there is only one God. If a man has a son is the son a man also ? Yes, obviously. The son of a man IS a man. If a God has a son, then there are two gods. But we are reliably informed that there is one God. Besides, he wept. Gods don't weep. Why would they ! Gods can fix all problems. Dry all tears.

[@jonathanbelknap3613]

I have watched a dozen or more debates with Ehrman and I must say this is the first time comes off unprepared. Evens got him good from the start and he never shook it off.

[@gregrhodes6802]

Jonathan Belknap : because to defend his position Ehrman would have to go *full blown mythicist*.. he comes so very close.. but won’t go there.... gotta save that paycheck and book sales.. so he ends up talking in circles...

[@jays2877]

Given that Nova Scotia is French speaking, it would have been courteous of Craig Evans to learn to pronounce "Notre Dame" properly.

[@robbielee2148]

Absolutely wrong. Dartmouth, Halifax & New Glasgow really French cities? Not! You may like Bart as most do, but you obviously have no idea about Canada. The largest ethnic groups in in NS are: Scottish, English & Irish.

[@Braglemaster123]

This is BS. Rabbi Singer refuted him.

[@yahya2925]

who bart or will?

[@terrystormo772]

KZbin John Lost in, watch his bible code theory. You might find this interesting.

[@PC-vg8vn]

Ehrman uses the raising of Jairus' daughter as a 'contradiction' between Mark and Matthew. Im surprised that Ehrman doesnt see that Matthew has used a writing technique here called 'compression' whereby you compress the account to its bare bones, its main points. Matthew leaves out quite a lot that Mark includes, not just that the girl was very ill and then died. Matthew goes straight to the main point of what happened - Jesus raised a girl from the dead. Even today such compressing of the account wouldnt be viewed as a contradiction to a fuller account which includes many more details. Has Ehrman purposefully ignored the reality of compression in writing so that he can claim a 'contradiction' where none exists? You decide.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Of course you can perform olympic levels of mental gymnastics to rationalize all of those contradictions, but the much bigger problem is that there is not a shred of evidence that the stories happened at all.😂

[@azad1718]

Son of Mary Jesus was neither killed nor crucified but Dr Bart did crucified this guy and some other will fully deceiver

[@josephjohnson701]

How exactly is citing a "Bible scholar" have any more empirical valid than testimony of a Godzilla or a vampire scholar? Multi-sources? There are many movies about Godzilla and Dracula.

[@davidpope7532]

I had to comment again. I'm a fully committed Jesus freak Hahahaaa. I appreciate Dr ehrmans approach. He is just saying. Are all 4 accurate? They don't congeal. But Chris is right. Face value is personal. Much more important. I wouldn't look at a map and hope to find information of dining. Haha. The gospels are not a historians blueprint.

[@DManCAWMaster]

david pope Yeah

[@nathanjora7627]

But we aren’t looking at a map hoping to find informations for dining (which you can have by the way, that’s called a Michelin’s map XD), we’re looking at biographies and hoping them to be reliable reports of what happened in the life of the person they are about. If the almighty creator of the universe said something, wouldn’t you want to know what he said ? How are you meant to know if those who gave us his teachings didn’t report them accurately, changing places, times, or content, for the sake of their narratives ?

[@AGNOSSI]

Bart...Truth

[@omnipitous4648]

Bart - 1 Craig - 0

[@santonigeek]

Even those gospel inaccurated Christian should move on Just pretend its accurated Roman god, greek god need more money from this business Church needs private jet

[@PicoGirl]

The nit picking of you Mr Ehrman is ridiculous. Obviously your teaching is like new wine skin and your critical analysis can't see the trees for the leaves. Just because some small details seem out doesn't indicate the whole thing is out. Just because you don't have the intellect to prove it, doesn't mean it is any less accurate. It just means you are lazy or dismissive. The genealogies could be of both parents, because of a non-earthly father (but you don't believe the narrative anyway it seems). Newspapers, and entire world - really, that's a stretch of the detail by trying to use hyperbole as though it counts. The Romans did a census in the time of Quirinius. It's plausible that Herod did the census because Herod was in the narrative after Christ was born. The logical answer is that this one detail was changed by a catholic scribe. I'm not convinced that Augustus had anything to do with it either, so maybe the information they received from Herod was dubious in the first place. In the book of Acts Luke talks about Herod in chapter 13, and then about the Quirinius census in Acts 5 with the uprising - maybe it was the second time over in ten years. No reason here to doubt the legitimacy of the gospels. John 14 is an evening meal with much discourse and ends when they leave the meal at the end of John 14. This seems to concur with the events the day before the pass-over meal as recorded in the other gospels where Judas goes to the priests. It seems logical that the next discourse of John 15 to 17 was the passover meal with Jesus that aligns with the other 3 Gospels. Passover is up to 8 days so there would be numerous passover meals. Matthew 27:50 specifically indicates that Jesus called out saying something loudly on two occasions before he died. "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" - Matthew 16:16, that's a divinity statement. And the others recognize it to. And John on the Island of Patmos had a revelation that the others didn't, but they all knew Jesus was the Christ. I think John had time to reflect more on the events. At the resurrection, they didn't have mobile phones or internet to communicate and so different people tell their version of different events. Get over it.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Holy crap, the amount of mental gymnastics that is necessary to rationalize those made up stories is astounding. There is not a single census in history that required you to visit the place where your ancestors lived a thousand years ago... it’s a story that was obviously invented to fulfill a prophecy. And of course... the gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who ever met eyewitnesses. Ancient authors always mentioned the names of their sources if they had access to the testimony of eyewitnesses and they always identified themselves when they were eyewitnesses who were part of the story. We got none of that in the gospels... it’s just fiction.

[@BrianBattles]

How can anyone believe the nonsense in the bible? It's amazing that any grownups do.

[@gregrhodes6802]

I tell *mythicist* to watch this debate and see how frustrated Ehrman becomes during the debate.. he comes SOOOO close to the mythicist hypothesis until he catches himself.. ending up talking in circles to try and save his life long teachings and books.. hahshsha...!!! 😆

[@arthurmontana8791]

Nonsense!