Bart Ehrman vs Richard Bauckham - Round 2

On Saturday 16th April 2016 - 02:30 pm, Bart D. Ehrman and Richard J. Bauckham join as guests with moderator Justin Brierley on radio show "Unbelievable," a weekly program aired on UK Premier Christian Radio from the London studio. They discuss "Can We Trust Eyewitness Testimony?" Bart Ehrman's new book "Jesus Before the Gospels" makes the case that the stories about Jesus would have changed and evolved before they were written down as the Gospels. Richard Bauckham, author of "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", defends the view that the Gospels were written by those with access to eyewitness testimony of Jesus' first followers. They debate who wrote Mark, whether the Gospels came from anonymous traditions and how they received their titles.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=11294
Christian radio show "Unbelievable" hosted by Justin Brierley: www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
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.
Richard J. Bauckham is a New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament studies at St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. "Bauckham is perhaps best known for his studies of the book of Revelation and for his commentaries on Jude and 2 Peter. He is also a thoughtful theologian who has written an introduction to the theology of Jürgen Moltmann. In his book God Crucified (1999), Bauckham displays the craft of both a careful exegete and a deft theologian as he explores the riddle of how the radically monotheistic Jews who composed the earliest church could have come to call Jesus 'Lord'." His book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses won the 2007 Book Award in Biblical Studies from Christianity Today.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman, Richard J. Bauckham and Justin Brierley. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman, Richard J. Bauckham or Justin Brierley is strictly prohibited.

[@cullenclark]

“Historical” to Bart has to be word for word, second by second, a task that no other historical writer has ever done.

[@Kratos40595]

You have to appreciate Bart Erhman for telling the truth. A believer who learnt about the bible to a scholarly level - learnt the truth about it - lost faith but informs in a truthful way without any Dawkins like stoicism & arrogance

[@dionsanchez3131]

People forget that for all of Bart's arguments and his skill, his own Doctor-Father, Bruce Metzger did not take his extreme view and said that the NT IS a reliable document for taking a step of faith. Further, my late father, a WW 2 vet, was able to recall conversations from his days in battle. What he recalled most vividly were the conversations at the start, during, and immediately after a fire fight or attack. This is because of the intensity of the situation. Some events including what was said can leave an emotional imprint that our brains can recall with a reasonable amount of accuracy. I do not doubt because of the intensity of the figure (Jesus) they were confronted with, along with the circumstances, that the first followers were able to remember and pass down what they witnessed accurately.

[@toxendon]

Dion Sanchez Then why do we have different accounts on how Jesus returned?

[@TheSmithDorian]

I think that you're missing Bart's point. He isn't making any claims about the reliability of the gospels for taking a step of faith. He is making three main assertions; 1) The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses to the events that they describe. 2) We should not expect accounts of events that have been passed on in multiple iterations through the memories of multiple individuals over periods of 40 - 60 years to be accurate or reliable. 3) The gospels should not be relied upon as historically accurate accounts of what took place at the time of Jesus. Keep in mind that it is not sufficient for the gospels to simply get the general gist of what happened right. Many fundamental Christian beliefs are based on specific things that Jesus was supposed to have said - sometimes in just a single sentence or utterance. So those words have to be right It's also worth noting that a lot of events in the gospels were not witnessed by any of the apostles. They were just not there when these things happened. So when we talk about the gospel authors being 'eyewitnesses' - at best they could only be eyewitnesses to some of the events that they write about - not all of them. For example; Mark's gospel tells us what Jesus said when he was praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Mark 14:35) . Yet the author tells us that nobody other than Jesus was there to hear those words. This event in the gospel cannot have been from an eyewitness account because nobody was there to witness it.

[@john1425]

It doesn't matter what Metzger thinks. If Bart just agreed with everyone that taught him that wouldnt be critical scholarship. You have no idea how accurately your father remembered any of that. Saying the NT is not reliable is not an extreme view its the mainstream view. Its consensus among biblical scholars that there are forgeries in the new testament.

[@karynation128]

Thanks Bart for posting this audio. And also thanks to Justin for being brave enough to discuss controversial Christian subjects on his program. However, I noticed how Justin basically gives Richard leading questions by first asking the question then before Richard can answer he gives the setup answer. Then when Richard is answering the question, which incidentally conforms to the set up answer given by Justin, Justin constantly vocally affirms every point Richard is trying to make with a verbal "Um-hm" or "Right" or 'Yes!'. When he asks Bart a question, the question is delivered mostly without preamble. When Bart is talking, Justin gives Bart no affirming vocal cues.

[@ReasonableFaithSA]

If Bart is correct about memory reliability, then we should be skeptical about all history. No history is reliable.

[@dakansen5613]

Quite a balanced interview. But for two heavyweights of historical research on the NT, the discussion was light on methodology or analysis. I suppose a broad brushed discussion makes things more accessible for the general listener.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

Think about how many times you need to go back to scriptures to make sure you have it right, then think about not having any scripture to fall back on yet still preaching what you think. The mind plays it's tricks on everyone.

[@jollyandwaylo]

I find it amazing to remember that Christians are claiming Jesus was God, not just some rabbi running around the countryside. If a god meant for these words to be important to anyone in the future or outside of the local area, surely a god would have made sure the words were very accurate- maybe written in stone so the words wouldn't be changed.

[@rfs056]

jollyandwaylo we have to remember we aren’t God and his ways are higher than ours so his reason for doing it we will not know maybe it will test people’s faith and make them dig deep

[@ichigo449]

@@rfs056 The Care Bears work in mysterious ways. We cannot know why they chose to only ever help the white children. It's a test of our faith in their eternal adorableness. Praise the 🐻!

[@neilus]

I dunno...im agnostic and a huge BE fan. But his criteria for biblical accuracy as a marker for historical fact, hmmmm. Imagine 10 eye whitnesses to the 1966 World Cup Final. There would surely be inconsistencies, about the weather, who provided the pass for the 2nd goal, when the 3rd goal happened etc...however they would all agree on the key points - a game of football was played between England and Germany, at Wembley Stadium, on 30/06/1966 which England won 4 -2. Variations in recollections of an event is NOT proof that the event never occured.

[@ichigo449]

Sure but what if that's all you have to go off of and the few large claims you can test against other reliable sources and archeology are false? Ehrman doesn't say he can prove that the events didn't happen-- he just has a high degree of doubt. I can't prove Joesph Smith didn't dig up golden plates but I'm mighty skeptical of it.

[@KamranSher]

Loves the way Bart explains

[@mikkun_]

Thats what I want from Bart probing questions..I always buy his books, loved to read it again and again..

[@wrightwrjr]

At around 22:00 Bauckham tells it all. He can't come up with what he is asked to come up with and actually ends up saying what Ehrman is saying about memory when he says people cannot remember details. In a lot of cases these are very important details. These are details which can totally change the whole story. Bauckham simply cannot deny this nor can he come up with examples to prove his point. I sincerely think that he just doesn't want to admit that the bible may be totally wrong in many accounts. Continually lying to him himself doesn't change anything. At around 45:00 he really wraps himself around the axle.

[@Willbk1]

Justin needs to allow equal time to both guests to make their cases. These shows were simply a friendly chat between Richard and Justin with Bart providing occasional commentary that these two pals would then consume most of the shows airtime attempting to refute.

[@vincebuckley1499]

4 Canonized Gospels, over 40 of them rejected. Even in the beginning Christians thought other Christians were either remembering incorrectly or lying about it over 90% of the time.............

[@dstrees]

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[@toxendon]

Donald Smith Tried that for eight years. White noise.

[@ichigo449]

Would you be shocked if similar sayings existed in the vast majority of religions throughout history? I know I wouldn't be. How is that convincing for you?

[@hzoonka4203]

On the topic of remembering,its a matter of what is and is not convinient.

[@grant7476]

Really enjoyed this debate. I think this is a good debate and I think Ehrman knows a lot about memory so I tend to trust him, but in Bauckham's book he shows pretty convincgly that the four canonical gospels are the most reliable sources and no other comes close to studying the historical Jesus.

[@Swizstick]

+grant mohler That's not at all at issue in this debate, nor is it something with which Ehrman disagrees. In fact, Erhman himself has argued in great detail that our best sources of information about the historical Jesus are the canonical gospels. They're not very good sources of information about the historical Jesus, but we don't really have any better sources. What's at issue here is whether the gospels contain eyewitness testimony, and if they do, whether that testimony can be trusted. Both scholars agree that there are some morsels of information contained in the gospels that are likely accurate (i.e., can be traced back to eyewitness accounts of things that actually happened). Both scholars also agree that there are accounts of events that didn't occur as they are recounted (e.g., sermon on the mount). Bart's position is that the gospel authors weren't using first-hand eyewitness testimony. Moreover, even if some of what they say can be traced back to eyewitnesses, there's no guarantee that an eyewitness is giving you an accurate account. In fact, the research shows that eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. But there's a larger argument that Bart wants to make. Since Christians are making things up (e.g., non-canonical gospels), and we know there are mistakes in the canonical gospels, and we know there are all kinds of reasons why any given thing we read might not be correct, we'll have to be very critical about everything we read, and have a damn good method for figuring out what's is or isn't historically accurate. Baukham, on the other hand, seems more concerned to reassure fellow Christians that the gospels are "reliable" in a very nebulous and uncritical sense. Bart is trying to hold his feet to the fire and show why that approach isn't going to cut it if you want to know about the historical Jesus.

[@TheSmithDorian]

Well summed up.

[@pannonia77]

Yes, the first three canonical gospels are the most reliable sources of studying the historical Jesus. I do not regard John's gospel reliable. He quite clearly made a lot of things up. E.g. the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and the Samaritan woman (neither of these stories have any audience, they are private dialogues, how did tell them to John?). Just as Jesus's speech at the Last supper, which is entirely in odds with the version of the synoptics. Another problem I missed from this talk is the fact that Matthew and Luke was also making up things. Clearly the birth stories and Jesus's genealogy were made up. The birth stories agree on the points they want to illustrate (the Galilean Jesus was born in Judea in Bethlehem, Jesus was not the son of his mother's husband), but disagree on every point of detail. So it seems to me clear, that they were composed in order to illustrate those points, which Mark has not addressed in his gospel.

[@zeus-cu4ft]

Awesome and always great. Mighty Bart Ehrman. I love this guy..

[@Justinsatiable]

I think the difference between Bart and other scholars is that Bart presents a lot of evidence and examples, while other scholars provide theories and conjectures.

[@loncarkey]

You are a very patient man, Bart. I should add up exactly how much extra time he gave bauckham to labour his dreary points.

[@niceforkinmove5511]

Perhaps an atheist organization is more fair with the time they offer Christians who they allow to speak and challenge their views? Can you offer one?

[@ichigo449]

@@niceforkinmove5511 The Athiest Experience always gave ample time to their callers and no one ever cuts off William Lane Craig when he's debating.

[@Dom20002007]

Bart's analogy regarding the state of the union address and memory is a poor one. A better analogy would be how accurately an university lecturer would remember a lecture they delivered time and time again for many years. The early Christians were teachers and evangelists. Given the rapid spread of Christianity the apostles and their immediate disciples (eg Polycarp) would have been recounting the stories of Jesus over and over again. It would not have been, as Bart implies, a single witness of an event and then multiple single transmissions then eventual documentation far removed. That of course would have been very inaccurate but it would seem to me very unlikely if you consider how the early Christians would have lived. The faith was their life, and often their death via martydom. Spreading the faith far and wide would have been their primary mission and this would have involved constant repetition of the main stories and teaching points. Memory in this instance would have been crystallised and much more accurate particularly given the significance of the events

[@raadicalbills]

Sayings are sayings but I believe he died for me & rose again as GOD...

[@tedgrant2]

Suppose you put a packet of chocolate biscuits in a cupboard and three days later you look and find the cupboard is empty. You ask your children if they know what happened. They all agree that an angel appeared and took the biscuits away. Naturally, as they were eye witnesses, you would have to believe the event is historically accurate.

[@bonnie43uk]

As always, Bart is bang on the money.

[@401Northwestern]

Damn Baukman talked so much I wondered why they invited Ehrman. Smdh biased facilitator

[@qed9600]

Richard's saliva crackling makes listening to him difficult.

[@Livingmydreammm]

yippie!

[@UnimatrixOne]

One thing is clear, no one could keep all the words, parables, etc. that Jesus spoke *exactly in his head.* The meaning alone could *possibly* have been preserved. Unless you use the argument that God received a perfect memory for the gospel writer. But if you accept that, the question remains, why are there so many contradictions?!

[@teonarunderlitzt9278]

TRUE!

[@kylatrain7804]

Out of Topic: Is it true that the Vatican 2 declared that the Genesis/Creation story is a Myth?

[@Thagomizer]

No, that goes all the way back to St. Augustine. Probably earlier than him, too.

[@Chomper750]

Bart's claim about lining up differences in the accounts is proof the stories were changed is nonsense. There could be three people in line to order food at a restaurant. Afterwards, I ask the person behind them in line some information about them. That person could say the guy in the green shirt ordered a cheeseburger. I could ask the person that was in front of them in line and that person could say they were talking about going out for a beer later. Different people will have different perspectives on the same event. They won't all tell every detail in sync with each other. Yet none of these differences in accounts mean that either or both took liberties to change what happened. I followed Bart for a long time and still have a paid subscription to his blog. But the deeper I look into Bart, the more faults in his arguments become apparent.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Well, we can prove that the gospels aren’t independent sources and that the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark but we still have irreconcilable differences. But the main problem isn’t that we have examples where the stories were changed..ö the main problem is that there isn’t a shred of evidence that the stories happened at all.😂

[@KenHoodJr]

What the Christian apologists present here is definitely not compatible with any serious notion of Biblical Inerrancy. At best they present a view that leaves one at "moderate orthodoxy" but basically gives up the farm when it comes to preserving a *historical* defense of the integrity and reliability of the gospels. These are clearly smart guys and they are willing to say (despite their clear bias in favor of their faith) that there are simply discrepancies between canonical accounts and that there is no reliable way to distinguish between false accounts (bad memories) in the gospel, outright invented accounts, and true accounts that accurately reflect what was happening. The best they can say is that some rough "gist" of early memories is likely preserved in the gospel accounts.

[@sendtoanthony]

Imagine if the only source we had for L.Ron Hubbard was official Scientology literature. How accurate would our picture of LRH be? What if we only had literature approved by the LDS Church? Would that give us an accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith? The New Testament is a collection of official orthodox Christian literature. It's basically cult literature promoting the interests of the cult.

[@erichodge567]

Ray Cyst, that is a helluva good point.

[@moesypittounikos]

I see your point but from what I've gathered from listening to these sorts of talks is that the bible is so contradictory that no cult will ever approve of so many holes in their fledgling movement!

[@RonJohn63]

3:50 I'm an American, was an adult at the time, and don't remember where I was when I heard about it. I *do* though remember where I was when I heard about Reagan's assassination attempt: my high school library.

[@cullenclark]

The state of the union example is so poor

[@smb123211]

Two reasons to doubt the Gospels: similarity of events and psychology. Three writers choose the same events to list but John presents a completely different list of events. Secondly, if any miracle described - water into wine, walking on water, healing the blind, mentally ill or lame, raising the dead, floating away in the sky - actually occurred it'd be global headlines. Would a viewer (particularly 2,000 years ago) simply walk away or go home and forget about it? What's telling is that not a single writer - Jewish or Roman - mentions any of these and this includes Paul!

[@ajmalsarwar2939]

Brierley tries backing up Bauckham's claim by saying he remembers how he met his wife. Ehrman refutes it with two years of research into the study of memory.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

Ajmal Sarwar out of curiosity...so in studies like the one Erhman uses, does the information from their faulty memory ( forgot about the test or their original answers) change anything regarding the actual event ( shuttle accident)? Ehrman’s goal is the same as a defense attorney; disregard common sense facts based on interviews and to gather that information but find a smoking gun of doubt! Think OJ Simpson. They found a detective that perjured himself and the defense team made the glove look like it was someone else’s and the verdict was inevitably changed on those two areas! Disregard the hundreds of pieces of evidence that placed Simpson at the crime scene... my point is that like Luke, was that gum-shoe detective seeking out all the eyewitnesses and other testimony and penned his results, shows that the events did take place ! If Ehrman follows his own line of reasoning, then why would you trust that a 2000 year old document he viewed 10 years, 30 years, last week... that he correctly remembers the accurate details? The point of the four gospels is to show a panoramic view from all angles to bring into view the whole picture from multiple testimonies... World war 2 stories or even the Titanic, Civil war...is done with the same line of reasoning.

[@ichigo449]

@@Kenneth-nVA This quote from an Amazon review of Bauckham's book explains my main reservation with believing anything miraculous in the Gospels quite well: Both time and space were obstacles for hostile eyewitnesses to debunk false stories about Jesus. All the hostile eyewitnesses of Jesus who ever lived lived in Palestine--a land only one half of one percent the size of the Roman Empire. Thus an eyewitness of Jesus who knew that Jesus had never performed the wonders attributed to him by the Christians would have to travel hundreds of miles from home to confront Christians living in Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome. Even the people who survived infant mortality and death in childbirth were normally dead by their fiftieth birthdays, so the people who were adults during the ministry of Jesus were dying off in droves by the time the canonical Gospels were finally written, some time from forty to seventy years after Jesus’ death. Even worse, many if not most of the surviving eyewitnesses of Jesus were slaughtered when the Romans under Generals Vespasian and Titus demolished Jerusalem and its Temple in AD 70. This means that Christian leaders who lived hundreds of miles away from Palestine in Ephesus or Rome after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 could have made up all kinds of tales-and who could prove them wrong? Persecution and hostile eyewitnesses did not stop the Kimbanguist Church (Kimbangu: An African Prophet and His Church) or the Hasidic Jews (In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov (Shivhei ha-Besht), The Earliest Collection of Legends about the Founder of Hasidism) from making up tales of the mighty miracles of their founders Simon Kimbangu or the Baal Shem Tov well within living memory, and there is no reason to believe that the founders of Christianity were any more honest.

[@TheHistoryguy10]

Oh boy! In Acts we are told that the apostles were trained by Jesus Himself for 40 days before His ascension. The Gospels were not written in a haphazard way but were constructed in a deliberate way. The apostles repeated the contents of the Gospels thousands of times to different people and churches which made them masters of the contents. They consulted each other about the sayings and events and collectively were more than able to reconstruct everything in the Gospels. All of this is possible without invoking the Holy Spirit and His help. Again, it’s astonishing that 21st century academic believe that we’re dealing with 1st century idiots or infants.

[@edgarvera4621]

A great thing about the New Testament is it’s inconsistencies. There doesn’t appear to be an attempt at uniformity and there seems to be little concern for precise consistency between the Gospels, or Acts. But, taken as a whole, with much corroboration between the different Gospels, and Acts, and the authentic Pauline epistles, the story is quite compelling. We must accept that the authors of the New Testament had no interest in historical accuracy. They make incidental historical references germane to the faith story being told. Nevertheless, the faith story is indeed compelling and the writers of the New Testament do allege to have come into contact with persons who alleged to be eye witnesses of the resurrection. That’s the closest they could come to the actual event. The rest is faith.

[@john1425]

Richard just throws everything at the wall and hopes something sticks.

[@SirPayne]

Bauckham's whole argumentation is based on wishful thinking. It's painful listening to this heavily biased guy.

[@jordanduran964]

That’s your opinion

[@ichigo449]

@@jordanduran964 Yes he's not stating the mass of the electron. He's evaluating the argument presented and finding it unconvincing. Do we need to constantly preface all statements with 'In my opinion...'?

[@ChiliMcFly1]

How can you trust eye witness testimony that is 140 years old ?

[@thedivinemrm5832]

+ChiliMcFly1 - it's the greatest game of Chinese Whispers ever told...

[@bayreuth79]

+TheDivine MrM Why would we need to rely on eye witness testimony that is 140 years old? The Gospel of Mark was written down about 15 to 20 years after Jesus; that's within the lifetime of the people who actually knew him. The whole canon of the NT was completed by AD90, only 60 years after Jesus. So where do you get 140 from?

[@thedivinemrm5832]

bayreuth79 Check again, that wasn't my number. All the same, this "evidence" would not stand up in any court, in any land.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

bayreuth79 Look up on line P52, this is the scrap the size of a credit card that has been dated 125 ad to 150 ad. It's the oldest and only one manuscript of the NT. Everything else written in the NT is dated 2nd, 3rd century and later.

[@bayreuth79]

I have seen it. Its in Manchester. I studied at the University of Manchester. It is our earliest manuscript (i.e., the earliest copy of a NT text)- but everyone agrees that the original texts were written about a hundred years earlier than this (around 40AD). Bart Ehrman agrees that Paul and Mark wrote about 20 years after Jesus. Our earliest copy of Homer's Odessey is from the first century, but everyone agrees that Homer wrote centuries earlier.

[@TheHistoryguy10]

Why wouldn’t the Gospel writers not follow the actual historical sequence? There were 12 disciples (and many others) who followed the ministry of Jesus closely. They would have consulted each other about the events and were trained by Jesus for 40 days before His ascension. Jesus dictated what they were to spread to the world. They would have recited the contents of the Gospels thousands of times and mastered the contents. The Holy Spirit was sent to help them remember (John 14:26). Why is Richard playing right into Ehrman’s hands? Take an appropriate stand for God’s Word!

[@crimony3054]

A buddy who worked as a cop said the supervisors told them that if they accidentally shoot someone, they should shout, "Stop! Police!" Why? If any witnesses said you shot before shouting, they'd bully them and say, "Why would he shout 'Stop! Police!' AFTER he shot the guy?" All that eyewitness stuff is entirely gaslighting. Everyone can sing a song they've heard and sung a thousand times. Same thing with what the people around Jesus remember of his sermons.

[@MrOttopants]

"It never even occurred to me that Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount." Bauckham It's sad to listen to Bauckham go back and forth between his convictions. He's essentially saying that Jesus said some things, some people claim to have heard them, and he thinks that they were adequately remembered to be written down decades later. He's basically saying that they kind of "got the gist" of the whole thing. "Gist" is his word. One thing that Bauckham really needs to listen to is that when people constantly repeat a story, the story is used for a specific purpose. We actually change our memories of the event by constantly repeating it. Ehrman makes a great point when he talks about the study where some people were told to imagine doing something, and others were told to actually do it. The memory of imagining yourself doing it is as strong as actually doing it. I watched a Netflix series about a crime that took place in 1985. Those involved had remembered and repeated a specific series of events. 30 years later, however, they couldn't even remember having come up with those fake stories. So they intentionally create a series of events to show a certain story. Later, however, they can't remember any of it. It's kind of sad to listen to this full grown man make such favorable arguments for his own position while simply ignoring the numerous pitfalls. This man is not an academic.

[@apm77]

35:45 - "if they want to preserve something faithfully, they come up with various means of doing it. An obvious one ... is to entrust certain people ... with the task of preserving these traditions." Richard is correct here, but not pertinent. Oral cultures, in fact, _do_ have techniques for keeping information accurate, but those techniques require concerted effort and are not used indiscriminately. Among the first principles is that you can EITHER keep a story accurate OR you can tell it again and again but you cannot do both at the same time. However, in the case of Jesus, all the incentives for followers who believed the world would end within their lifetime were to tell the stories as often as possible and NOT to preserve them for posterity. And, of course, first century Palestinian peasants are not exactly tribal elders. I recommend everyone to read Lynne Kelly on this subject.

[@stan1027]

It seemed to me that Richard just kept backtracking to essentially agree with Bart, every time Bart challenged his views

[@AbnormalWrench]

All this talk about 1st and 2nd hand eye-witnesses. All that is fine, but these are 3rd hand eye-witnesses. The writers are referencing writings that reference 1st hand eye-witnesses.

[@stfu_mango_baboon]

+Abnormal Wrench wow.... evidence please. Where are these 2nd eye witness hand writings? Why are they not in circulation and used to establish the religion?

[@AbnormalWrench]

Robert Griffin Evidence? All the gospels have many passages copied verbatim. Clearly they are copies of earlier writings. Even if you want to assume, for example, Mark being the earliest, was all original (it definitely was not), then the other gospels that copied Mark are at least 3rd hand. Look up "gospel of Q" if you want just one example of well known earlier writings that we don't have direct evidence of.

[@stfu_mango_baboon]

Exactly, where is these writtings? Where are the commentaries of various church leaders discussing them? The gospel of Q theory never really holds much water in the discussion. Even if Mark is based on an earlier work, then why get rid of the original? What changes did Mark make to that gospel? We know Matthew and Luke took the Mark gospel and rewrote them to tell a different stories, so why wouldn't an earlier "gospel of Q" actually ruin the whole system from top to bottom. What if Q had completely different theology from the concepts presented in the 4 gospels. Just suggesting there was one and they must have lost it, skeptically sounds suspicious to me.

[@AbnormalWrench]

Robert Griffin I'm not sure why you think they purposely got rid of anything. No need to put forward a conspiracy, we have almost no written documents for the first century in any context, which isn't terribly surprising considering the religion was new, didn't have many followers, most of which would have been illiterate.

[@ichigo449]

@@stfu_mango_baboon Either they are quoting a source that isn't Mark or it's the most amazing coincidence in history. People don't phrase things word for word the same unless they're copying someone. Or is every charge of plagiarism in school unfounded?

[@john1425]

LOL! At 46:00 Bart basically gets Richard to admit that the thesis of his book is completely wrong.

[@Bill_Garthright]

Bauckham - with Brierley's encouragement - imagines that what he wants to be true _is_ true, and then imagines that, if that were actually the case, there might be a way in which he could also imagine that it's reliable. That's a lot of imagination without any evidence to back it up. For example, he imagines that the four gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony - or _based_ on eyewitness testimony - and then imagines that such testimony is accurate, because it was really important to those imagined eyewitnesses, and _then_ imagines that the different accounts at the tomb are due to interviews with different eyewitnesses. In reality, there's no reason to believe _any_ of that. If you have a really good imagination, it's possible to come up with explanations for what you really, really want to believe in the first place. But even then, it's just based on your imagination, not on actual evidence that it's true. Bart Ehrman has a lot more patience for this kind of thing than I do!

[@exilfromsanity]

I imagine you might be right!

[@BeyondSkys09]

This is a straw man argument against Bauckham. He doesn't imagine that the 4 gospels are based on eye witness testimony, he bases his reasoning on evidence, contrary to what you say. Luke very clearly states in his preface to his gospel that he has sourced his information from eye witnesses. John in the epilogue to his Gospel states that what has been told is based on the testimony of the beloved disciple. We have early attestation to Mark's gospel being based on the eye witness testimony of Peter. Matthew I'm not too sure about. On the oither hand, Erhman imagines that stories of Jesus were being passed on from one person to another with all kinds of additions and subtractions combined with faulty memory so that what we do have in the Gospels are merely distortions based off stories about Jesus decades earlier. There is no reason to believe any of that!

[@TomAnderson_81]

BeyondSkys09 There are eyewitness testimonies of people who saw Bigfoot, Krishna, aliens, and all sorts of divine gods and beings so by your logic, they are all absolutely true because "eyewitness testimonies"?

[@petermetcalfe6722]

BeyondSkys09 - You're forgetting that the Bible is the claim and not the evidence.

[@karynation128]

BeyondSkys09 Check out Mark16:9-21 if you want clear evidence of ancient tampering with the earliest sources of the Gospels. Then check out John 7:53-8:11 For a more historically recent change to the original New Testament sources, check out the King James version of 1 John 5:7 compared to any careful translations of the ancient sources (for example the NIV). I could go on but I think I have made my point that there is a lot of 'straw' to pull out of this mess of history.

[@mediamactv]

Of course the disciples can't remember everything Jesus said. They could remember some but not all. They could remember some events but not all. They don't have to remember everything. As Jesus said, the Holy Spirit will remind you (John 14:26). Paul says: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

[@hawkxlr]

This is circular reasoning. You're using the Bible to justify the validity of the Bible

[@ichigo449]

So you believe Simon Kimbangu rose the dead, made the blind see and healed cripples in the Congo in the 1920s? There's lots of eyewitness accounts and people willing to die in prison for their faith in his rebellion against the Belgian government. Sounds a lot like early Christianity to me.

[@sophia7shekinah]

Someone could have been keeping minutes - an unknown learned person - just like we make notes today in lectures and keep minutes at meetings, then maybe someone 50 years later decided to record it as gospels so that the wider community could have access to his notes of what Jesus said.

[@toxendon]

sophia7shekinah Or they could not have. Nobody is claiming that Jesus never said any of the citation in the scriptures. It's a mystery. It's like a lost black box after a strange air plane crash.

[@sophia7shekinah]

It seems so.

[@LughSummerson]

9:13 In defending the accuracy of the Gospels, Richard says that witnesses in court cases are quite persuadable. Would he agree that a group of uneducated people in the first century could be persuaded that an ordinary rabbi performed the miraculous acts attributed to him by legend? If it's that easy to misguide a court witness who has specifically been told to be objective and think carefully, isn't it much easier to get someone to believe a story presented as truth and which tells them what they want to hear? And how do you convince someone a fiction is true? “I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.”

[@thesageofreason9643]

This is legitimately painful to listen to. Justin has a good speaking voice and enunciates well but as a host he is piss poor. This was not a debate between Bart and Richard, it was a conversation with Bart & Richard, framed the best way they could to let Bart chime in 10% of the time with brilliant points I should add, only to have Justin plead back to Richard "but Richard, we all know this can't be true because...because...Jesus". Pathetic Justin. Bart: well done and you are a patient man. Richard's assertions about memory are astounding. It is clear he has not read quality sources for his assertions because that which he makes about memory are patently false. Thank you for holding him to the fire on those.

[@milkshakeplease4696]

since your thoughts are just a result of chemical reactions in your brain, how do you know you are reasoning?

[@hzoonka4203]

There is a lot of back pedalling going on with J.B.just saying,

[@tiagoscherer1158]

Once again, the wishful believer saying what he likes to believe for the reason he wants to believe to be the truth, with nothing but mambo jambo "evidence". Bart you are a man of patience !!!!

[@mrmorpheus9707]

Richard just keeps trying to rationalize all of these holes....wierd

[@StandForTruth205]

They are totally ignoring the fact that the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit!

[@fouadibrahim9508]

Loool. Says who?

[@JohnDoe-gp3ks]

Yes, but who heard what Jesus said when he prayed, since the apostles were asleep on the night of his death. Scriptures were inspired of God and do not originate with men.

[@ichigo449]

@Huhmongus Magic 🍄

[@artvanderlay1308]

@Huhmongus wasn't Jesus capable of telling his followers?

[@timmarrier]

Bart is awesome. Such a great debater too, about as honest as it gets for the academic approach. A real challenge for theists who brave the dialectic, especially publicly.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

So according to Bart, we can never really be sure of anything! Why should I believe or even Bart believe what he has read, studied, researched and understood, regarding anything or everything in antiquity? His arguments used on his own position(s) would caution me not to trust that he really read, translated, properly transmitted “ 100% correctly “ all that he has you believing! If, as he has stated in other videos, those translators had overwhelming biases, are you saying that you don’t as well? He also uses certain early documents ( church father’s etc...) as proof texts against why this verse or that biblical passage is wrong or false, then turns around and tells you that their manuscripts are not to be trusted! Amazing

[@mhmeekk3003]

Wow! After these two debates, I've seen Bart develop his arguments a bit more -- but I've really seen some extra power behind Bauckham's position. Bauckham wins yet again, and he didn't even have to cite his research on the names in the Gospels.

[@tommonk7651]

I haven't yet watched the video, but I cannot understand for the life of me how any supposed eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus's life, assuming he was a historical person, could remember his quotes verbatim for 35 - 60 years or so that it took the gospels to be written. No contemporaneous notes or documents have ever turned up, and the vast majority of the people who would have heard him were illiterate. I can't remember verbatim conversations I had yesterday, much less 35 years ago or more. That realization alone is enough to recognize the NT gospels as fiction.

[@swiftspy]

+Tom Monk You should drop out that nonsense about Jesus beeing a fictional character. New generations of folish atheists like R. Carrier are not taken seriousely when it comes to that matter.

[@bonnie43uk]

+swiftspy I beg to differ, Richard Carrier *is* taken seriously by other biblical scholars.

[@tommonk7651]

+swiftspy Well, I'll tell you swifty, I think I'll just make up my own mind on that. Foolish or not, there is sufficient reason to question. The bible is far from historically accurate. Even if an historical Jesus existed, he was certainly not what the bible or the church has portrayed for 2 millenia. If people are to be expected to live their lives based on these teachings and this man, I would expect something more than hearsay and second or third hand or even made up stories that are clearly wrong about a great many things.

[@stfu_mango_baboon]

+swiftspy I think you misunderstand the difference between fictional character and historical person. The descriptions and statements about Jesus in the bible could very well be a fictional character based upon a historical person. Just as in general Patton was a historical person, but in films such as Patton in 1970 he was a fictional character. fictional characters could be based upon historical persons and may do and say what those historical persons did say, it does not equate that the fictional character is the same or equal to the historical person. In the case of Jesus, there very well may have been one historical person that the fictional stories were based upon. It is also possible that the stories had come from previous fictional stories and attributed to the historical person. It is also possible that there was several claimed messiahs from which many fictional stories were told, that were later attributed to one historic person. This is what Tom Monk was getting at in his statements. That is what you misunderstand about "people" like Carrier. They are taken seriously on these subjects by people who actually try to understand their arguments. Its about whether the version of Jesus, as described in the bible, is a true representation of the historical character or not.

[@tommonk7651]

+swiftspy And you act as if Carrier is alone in his objection to the historical Jesus. He certainly is not. Price, Lataster, Murdoch, and many others share his view.

[@colindowson7615]

Richard is being disingenuous by comparing the Gospels to other historical events,if we applied Bart's criteria to these documents,all historical reliability would collapse but we aren't debating any old historical events,we are debating the greatest miracle of all and the existence of God,all ant-scientific if not irrational..

[@frankwhelan1715]

Anyway a terribly poor way for a god to leave"important" evidence for his existence/deeds,, being there IS so much disagreement about the truth of it. surely incredible stories we are asked to believe should have stronger evidence (then ordinary stories) not weaker . and there shouldn't be a need for these torturous "explanations" believers have to go trough to convince others(and maybe themselves)

[@alinkakabaeva]

"the invisible gorilla" explains illusions of memory, knowledge etc.

[@jonnyw82]

A little different situation but I know what you mean

[@TimFuller]

Any attempt to justify a 'coherent' storyline passed along verbally over decades is WHACK! #hoboheretic Enjoy.

[@2ezee2011]

It had to be embarrasing for Dr. Bauckham to agree with Dr. Ehrman and still try to make the case for impossible to verify memories. But what choice does he have? Sad to defend such a bad logic. Secondly DO NOT listen to this with headphones ..the slurping, smacking, and other mouth noises while speaking are INSANELY DISTRACTING.

[@josephpatterson2513]

Bart refers to the scholarship and Bauckman is just making shit up. It is unbelievable.

[@timelesslordkotahi]

Bart 1, Richard and Justin...0

[@peterbrown6612]

Once again...Bart Ehrman is refuting fundamentalist strawmen. No, for the millionth time, the gospels are not historical in the way that Ehrman learned when he was at Wheaton. Yes they are historical according to the standards of Greco-Roman biographies of the time.

[@carlovanelli1694]

Bart Ehrman is refuting biased, conservative Christian "scholars" based on modern historical criteria. The same criteria Historians from all other areas of History use. Since through modern criteria Christian regressives cannot establish historical credibility for much of their religious beliefs, they resort to using ancient standards to determine historical accuracy. An approach which renders them out-of-date and irrelevant.

[@thenewtestamentactivists4119]

Jesus knew pretty well that people like Bart Erhman would come and pervert the message and that's why He said just before His ascension to the disciples in Acts 1:8, there He commanded these people's to be WITNESSES throughout the world. What does it mean to be a witness? A witness is the person who sees an event as an eye witness, typical example is that Police seek a witness to the crime. But, when comes to Jesus, a witness is the one who receive the Holy Spirit into his physical body. It's clear that the disciples were Witnesses of what the Lord Jesus Christ spoke & did yet, the disciples were denying their Lord, forsaking Him and that's unbelievable and impossible but disciples did b/c certain profound reasons and that's why Jesus asked these people can only become an effective witnesses only after the reception of the Holy Spirit into their physical bodies as this's a great phenomenon. However, the biblical scholars never understand the fact that to become a eye witness is only restricted to early disciples and it's absolutely false b/c of the fact that the eye witnesses were denied their Lord, therefore, even now anybody can become a witness to the Lord Jesus Christ when they receive the Holy Spirit into their physical bodies as this's what matters more than anything. If anybody receives the Holy Spirit then he can claim an eye witness of what Jesus spoke & did, he can also claim to exists before 2000 years like Christ did in John 8:58 irrespective of the physical age. What's the proof of these sort of arguments? The gospels or the entire bible has been inspired by the Holy Spirit who is the main source, therefore by making a relationship with the Holy Spirit, anybody can come to know those biblical books are true. The Holy Spirit can ENTER into the physical body then it becomes a temple of God that can't be destroyed by deadly diseases like Cancer or accidents or even weapons, of course this can be tested for Proof in accordance with a life of Jesus conducive to the present scenario that has been described in Revelation. Therefore, there are eye witnesses exist now in the 21st century. Bart Erhman claim very often that he was a believer for many years but the thing is that he failed to realise the need to become witnesses to the Lord Jesus Christ during his long life as believer, when Christ said you must be witnesses in Acts 1:8 and made available the provision then His earlier words to believe in Him and in God has become obsolete b/c of the progressive reality. Therefore, Become an eye witness of Jesus is not restricted to anyone at any time and that Bart made a blunder mistake in his approach to the NT text.

[@mediamactv]

John 14:23-26 Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will go to them and make our home with them. A person who doesn’t love me doesn’t do what I say. I don’t make up what you hear me say. What I say comes from the Father who sent me. “I have told you this while I’m still with you. However, the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything. He will remind you of everything that I have ever told you.

[@movieklump]

Extraordinary events require incredibly shoddy evidence. This is what Christianity, no all Theism, is based on.

[@HarleyDrummer1]

Resequencing misquotes and misremembered stories told 50 years after the "fact" by a collection of illiterate peasants into a text, which has no historical corroboration outside of the text itself, makes the text fallacious, and a product of deception or entertainment published by those that benefited by its publication.

[@josevazquez7197]

I don’t care who Bart Ehrman has a debate with he WINS 99.9 percent all the time. (That’s a fact.)IJs

[@jordanduran964]

Lol not a fact your opinion

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

Bart is comparing apples to oranges! People in the times that far back had very little to write on and no electronic gadgets, they had much more ABILITY TO REMEMBER and it was part of their culture! Just in my 61 years I clearly remember a time 40 years ago and further back when a person could easily remember things, much better than today, no comparison. One small example is a young adult that takes someones money at a cash register. The average young adult at those registers cannot do basic math, INCLUDING adding and multiplying if the cash register becomes inoperative, I've witnessed this MANY TIMES over the last 10 years. In 1968, WHEN I WAS 10 YEARS OLD, I was in line to pay and while next to be waited on, I calculated the sales tax without any hesitation whatsoever. I vividly remember, today, most math I ever memorized back then even though I nearly never use it. Vocabulary is another area and a foreign language as well, which I nearly never use, but remember about 90 plus per cent of what I actually tried to remember in the early 1970s. I have easily memorized Greek grammer, case endings, etc. hardly any effort, basic, everyday, memory. In the first century, those witnesses were Israelies, PRIMARILY, and Jesus was speaking primarily to them, they witnessed MIRACULOUS SIGNS, does anyone understand what that means? Bart even acknowledges that he can't understand the differences between the so-called gospels and epistles because he claims they are contradictions in content. Jesus was only sent to the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, as prophesied, EZE. 34 and JEREMIAH 23; AND JEREMIAH 50! In the gospels Jesus is addressing a Nation under a covenant of laws as their righteousness if they keep it, DEUT. 6:25. After Jesus dies, is raised, and sends the Holy Spirit, then the Acts and epistles are written under a DIFFERENT COVENANT and the APOSTLE Paul explains life and position of the one who now believes IN JESUS, THE SACRIFICE FROM GOD FOR RESCUE FROM GOD'S COMING WRATH AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IF THE UNSAVED ONE DIES BEFORE THEN. BART can't understand this even though it is doctrine in PLAIN LANGUAGE. HE knows what Philippians 2:6-11 and John 14-16 says in Greek, then says if Jesus was or is God, why doesn't he know the day or hour of his own return? Bart proves by this he cannot PERCEIVE spiritual words because they are discerned by the Holy Spirit as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2. This doctrine just mentioned is in PLAIN LANGUAGE AS IS VIRTUALLY ALL ACTUAL TEACHINGS- doctrines- ARE. Bart claims Jesus never claimed to be God, etc. Yet he admits that NO CARDINAL TEACHING OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS AFFECTED AT ALL IN THE APPENDIX OF HIS FIRST PAPERBACK EDITION OF MISQUOTING JESUS! IF JESUS DIDN'T CLAIM TO BE GOD, THEN CARDINAL BELIEFS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ARE CLEARLY AFFECTED in the plain language of the Greek mss.! BART IS clearly out of line concerning everything except what is exactly written in the New testament mss. Bart is no expert. Bart is KNOWN FOR CONTRADICTING HIMSELF, ON PURPOSE, BECAUSE HE SAYS ONE THING TO ATHEISTS-the Greek mss. are TOTALLY CORRUPTED and admits to interviewers, including his paperback edition, appendix, the opposite. One interviewer asked about what was actually in the origional AUTOGRAPHS and he says what we have now, after always saying WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGIONALS SAY. I heard him say this in at least 2 debates on his claims that the mss are TOTALLY CORRUPTED. Which Bart is on the phone in this conversation? What an embarrassment for atheists, muslims, etc. Most of the comments on this site are without knowledge of these FACTS ABOUT BART AND THE MSS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, and even common sense on intentional memorization, especially with something as profound as one claiming the things Jesus claimed, doing the many thousands of miraculous signs he did in front of thousands of peoples, out in the open and was executed for. Incredible INCOMPETENCE in the lack of knowledge in debates and comments on KZbin videos about the Christian beliefs and FAITH!

[@wendellvillanueva668]

I doubt people back then remember things better than people now days. There's no evidence for that!

[@ichigo449]

Hello boomer. I'm sorry the teenager at the cash register slowed down your day a few times. Must be why our technology is so pitiful these days. Sorry that psychological research totally contradicts you in this area. You're angry about cursive writing too aren't you?

[@sarge3570]

How do they know what Jesus said about anything? There is no good evidence that he even existed, much less that he said anything. If the gospels are pretty much made up, what else is out there. It seems stupid to validate the bible using the bible.

[@lizmariposa1]

Flustered Prof. Bauckham is a joke.

[@shawnchong8468]

It is pointless to talk to an individual that is blinded by faith. If one adopt, the see no evil and hear no evil concept. Thus, it is absolutely pointless to explain. The fear of death is the fundamental that makes one adopt faith in religion. The bible provides eternity as the solution to curb the dilemma of fear after death. However, most are unaware that attainment of eternity is never attainable via the Christian methology. If is that simple, individuals around us will not be mediating to achieve divinity. Although simplicity is the key to brilliance, it is not as simple as what the modern Christians perceived.That is, follow Jesus Christ and thy shall lead one to eternity. It is absolutely naive for one to accept as such metephors. Give a thought of what has been mentioned. If one, perceive those that commit themselves to divine meditation is absurd or deemed foolish, one shall ask the question the rational behind such practices. The orthodox Christians today, refute such practices because the Bible does not preach. However, there is no easy way out to attain divinity. The day one closes the eyes, one shall know the reality.