Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1

On Saturday 18th July 2015 at 02:30 pm, Bart D. Ehrman and Timothy J. McGrew 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 the Gospels?" Bart Ehrman discusses whether the Gospels are reliable historical records of Jesus’ life with Christian apologist and academic Tim McGrew. They debate whether inerrancy makes any difference, the authorship of the Gospels and apparent contradictions between them.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
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.
Timothy J. McGrew is the Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He also serves as a Senior Research Fellow with Apologetics.com. He hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Vanderbilt University (1992). He has published in numerous journals including Mind,The Monist, Analysis, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, and Philosophia Christi. His most recent publications include “Evidence” in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, a co-authored anthology in The Philosophy of Science. His teach interests include: epistemology, history and philosophy of science, philosophical applications of probability and philosophy of religion.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman 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 and Justin Brierley is strictly prohibited.

[@New_Essay_6416]

Why can’t McGrew answer the damn question? Jeez

[@sanpatch8447]

When I grow up, I want to be like Bart Ehrman.

[@greglogan7706]

As a Christian theist, I agree with you!

[@rumraket38]

Timothy having great trouble squirming out of stating his views on inerrancy was quite revealing.

[@anonymous-rj6ok]

I can no longer count how many times Tim was appealing to authority while agreeing not to do so upfront. Seems like this is a very popular debating strategy among apologists when faced with critical counter-arguments. It only shows they can't provide the "extensive evidence" whatsoever and it exposes a really weak argument.

[@sandorski56]

+ano nymous As I recall, he attacked Bart for doing so up front, even though that wasn't what Bart was attempting to do. It is, along with other fallacious arguments, a tactic. Apologists specialize in style over substance.

[@stevehays5029]

+ano nymous He didn't appeal to authority. You're hearing McGrew through Ehrman's filter. You need to think for yourself. For instance, McGrew's reference to Hengel wasn't an appeal to authority, since Hengel has provided an extensive *argument* for the originality of the Gospel titles.

[@jschram84]

You clearly haven’t watched the debate between Bart Ehrman and James White

[@Heretical_Theology]

Tim is out of touch with reality. At minute 54:00 he says "That (inerrancy) has been out of fashion in christian evangelical circles for a VERY long time." Really? Belief in Inerrancy is Christianity 101 for pretty much any baptist denomination. I can't believe he said this- it's so terribly incorrect it hurts his credibility. Also, Tim, it shouldn't take the host FIVE TIMES to get you to shut up, especially when you're just repeating yourself...

[@sleepy314]

TL;DR for the 1st 30 minutes: Tim: "there is a lot of evidence that Mark wrote the gospel we attribute to Mark (also Matthew, Luke, John)" Bart: "What evidence?" Tim: "We have lost it all, but it must be there because I want to believe it" Bart: "That is not evidence that we have" Tim: "You are so out of the mainstream!"

[@stevehays5029]

+sleepy314 McGrew didn't say we lost all the evidence. You need to improve your listening skills.

[@sandorski56]

+steve hays He pretty much did.

[@baldeagle1171]

+steve hays so if he indeed had the evidence why could he not provide it? Cause my listening skills also told me he still didn't have an answer

[@stevehays5029]

+Joshua Jones Which says less about his answer than your listening skills.

[@ianrwood21]

+steve hays OK Then quote him if you have such great listening skills

[@11OBlitzO11]

Right away we see the caliber of intellectual honesty in how Tim answers (or elects not to answer) Bart's question of inerrancy. Tim should really think about going into politics, ha ha.

[@Venaloid]

30:55 - Tim, you're the one who has failed to provide evidence for the Gospels being written by disciples of Jesus. You said there's strong evidence for this, and yet you're admitting that no one actually made this claim, arguing, "Well, everyone just knew it was true at the time." Maybe they did, but that speculation is not evidence.

[@crepituss9381]

It's pretty funny that Bart thought a philosopher would answer a yes/no question with a yes or no.

[@dahveed72]

Hes a Christian apologist. His training as a philosopher is incidrntal

[@oaktreet4335]

@@dahveed72 wrong

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@dahveed72 Apologist first... everything else comes later. He isn’t able to answer because he would have to lie or give up his ridiculous views.😂

[@davidfigueroa3489]

Tim has utterly and completely let the historical method fly right over his head.

[@Phi1618033]

Is it just a coincidence that Timothy McGrew looks and sounds like Ned Flanders?

[@bumpinugly4985]

Tal Moore stupid Flanders...

[@Bookworm-ye9qi]

I was thinking Tom Green

[@jameslombardi9183]

I love the simpsons. that being said, im asian, so all white people look like ned flanders to me.

[@sendtoanthony]

Regarding the authorship of the Gospels, let's say they were written by the followers of Jesus. How would it follow that they would be reliable as sources for the truth of Jesus of Nazareth. I mean if you were considering joining the People's Temple, could you rely on what the followers of Jim Jones said about him? If you wanted an unbiased portrait of Kim Jong Ill would you take official press releases at face value? Why not, they're written by his followers aren't they?

[@Robert.Deeeee]

Jesus cleansing the temple twice ? Desperately pathetic. For McGrew, the Bible has to be 100% reliable, no matter what mental gymnastics are needed

[@stevehays5029]

+Robbie “H.B” Desiato Actually, he gave specific reasons for his position, which you ignore. Your dismissive response is desperately pathetic. Next time, try to engage his actual reasons.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

steve hays what "specific" reason ? That he'll invent a 5th previously unheard gospel to try and iron out the contradictions, rather than admit a contradiction ? With any other book in history they'd be no problem in saying the author made a mistake, or the chronological order was changed for theological or narrative reasons. But, because this is the Bible, people like this cannot except any mistakes because they worship a book, instead of worshipping God.

[@stevehays5029]

+Robbie “H.B” Desiato i) In the debate, he gave specific reasons for his position on the cleansing of the temple. You need to improve your listening skills. ii) Likewise, he said Gospel writers sometimes rearrange the order of events for theological or narrative reasons. You're not listening. You need to pay attention to what people actually say. Because you suffer from knee-jerk hostility to Christian scholars, you subconsciously filter out what they say. Your prejudice acts as a subliminal screen.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

steve hays no he vaguely talked about the possible reasons & admitted he believed that it probably happened twice. This is the inerrantists position, but he hasn't got the balls to admit he's an inerrantist.

[@stevehays5029]

+Robbie “H.B” Desiato Not surprisingly, you fail to interact with the arguments he gave. He didn't take a firm position because both are possible, given the state of the documentary record. Since inerrancy is consistent with either one or two temple cleansings, your comment is illogical. Even if he were an inerrantist, that wouldn't require him to defend two temple cleansings. Evidently, you haven't read inerrantist scholars on this passage (e.g. Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Vern Poythress). Try not to make such uninformed comments. It just makes you look bad. Attitude is not a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. You have this paranoid notion that he must be an inerrantist who's hiding his true convictions. There is, however, no reason to think he'd be a doctrinaire inerrantist. The historical reliability of the Gospels is defended by scholars who don't subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture. Take Craig Evans. So your inference is fallacious. You are captive to a pleasing narrative that you and others have concocted about inerrantists. A narrative that has no basis in fact.

[@AbnormalWrench]

As always, thanks for posting these. Always worth listening to.

[@niallwalker2187]

Tim refutes any appeal to authority but then builds his whole case around ancient authorities,the blind leading the blind.

[@stevehays5029]

+Niall Walker That's not an argument from authority-that's testimonial evidence. Learn the difference.

[@mugdays]

This was an incredibly frustrating debate. Tim doesn't seem to understand that the onus is on HIM, the claimant. In other words, he's the one who has to provide evidence, since he's the one making the affirmative claim. Justin is a great moderator, though. He was objective, and kept things moving along when they were being bogged down. I'll love to hear more of these, Dr. Ehrman!

[@stevehays5029]

+mugdays You're confused. Both Ehrman and McGrew are making truth-claims. Therefore, both have a burden of proof to discharge. Denying something to be the case is just as much of a claim as affirming it.

[@mugdays]

steve hays "There's abundant external evidence" "Okay, where is it?" "We lost a lot of writings, it could have been in those" In that exchange, the burden of proof is definitely on the person claiming there is evidence, not on the person who says there isn't. I think you may confused, ol' chap.

[@stevehays5029]

+mugdays Now you've changed your claim in mid-stream. You're initial claim was entirely general. When challenged, you switch to a specific example regarding external evidence. You're free to shift ground, but don't pretend that's what you originally said. And you're ignoring the evidence he cited. Furthermore, to deny that there's abundant external evidence is no less a truth-claim with its own burden of proof as the converse.

[@mugdays]

steve hays " to deny that there's abundant external evidence is no less a truth-claim with its own burden of proof as the converse." You're just wrong there. If YOU claim there is evidence for something, it's up to you to present it, not me to prove it doesn't exist. And what evidence did Tim give? My example was exactly that: an example. He did it throughout the exchange. Did you listen to it? It was terribly frustrating. I'm not on either one's side, theologically. But I know one side constantly skirted the questions and was weaselly throughout the entire debate, and it wasn't Dr. Ehrman.

[@stevehays5029]

+mugdays You didn't begin with an example: you began with a blanket claim. You initially said: "the onus is on HIM, the claimant. In other words, he's the one who has to provide evidence, since he's the one making the affirmative claim." By that logic, if I deny that chain-smoking cigarettes raises the risk of lung cancer, the onus is not on me to furnish any evidence for my denial since I'm not making an "affirmative claim" (but a negative claim). And, yes, McGrew cited evidence for his claim. Ehrman disputed his evidence, and McGrew responded.

[@christianlaraque2234]

Tim’s a liar. He gave a lecture a year later in Kalamazoo on the Bible being inerrant and quelling the contradictions

[@1550Nanometer]

Every apologist is a liar. They have to lie for their deity, it's a requirement.

[@greglogan7706]

@@1550Nanometer Their perspective of a deity....

[@garyjaensch7143]

If you listen again Tim said discussing inerrancy was for another conversation, how can your statement be true?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@garyjaensch7143 Well, he refused to answer the question because that would expose him as a lunatic who doesn’t care about evidence and the historic method.

[@endofscene]

"Maybe Bart was skipping class that day" Oohh

[@OnekiKai]

Comments came up at the very beginning about the mythescists: I really wish there wasn't such animosity between the two. I've heard good-at-face-value arguments from both and would love to see the two camps really come together and debate this.

[@zeus-tl4yp]

Bart Ehrman is always great,,!!

[@Mentat1231]

Does Bart Ehrman really not understand the difference between "most historians hold my view" and "standard historical practice/method works like this"?? The first is pure appeal to authority and popularity of a view, but the latter is about methodology and standards of critical investigation.

[@ericcastellon6841]

I've gotta say Tim held his own on this one and part 2. I have listened to several debates where Bart has made the Christian look bad by getting them to fall for the inerrancy ploy or just ran them around, interrupting them with leading questions but Tim didn't fall for it and he hit back on every argument Bart made. He was not overly gracious nor overly aggressive. Very good debate. Can learn a lot from both men even where I disagree.

[@hiddenfact5950]

One need to be very courageous to tell the truth regarless of any faith.

[@PlasteredDragon]

That McGrew fellow seems to be spin-doctoring *hard*.

[@stevehays5029]

+PlasteredDragon And what are you doing, if not spin-doctoring hard?

[@PlasteredDragon]

steve hays I'm merely making an observation. It's fairly easy to see when someone is dodging a question, or desperately trying to make the facts fit a conclusion. I think patiently listening for almost an hour is more than enough time to tell if someone is spin-doctoring. It's likely not something one could divine from say, a nine word comment made by a stranger. :-) In any event, I'm not interesting in scrapping with a devotee. Just making an observation. There's a whole internet full of our fellow apes who are just itching for a fight, I'm sure you can find a different one to tussle with. :-) Muting this conversation now. All the best.

[@stevehays5029]

+PlasteredDragon You're merely making an observation you can't actually defend. That's for the admission.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Dear Tim: When you need to search in a library the evidence for a mighty God, you have already capitulated.

[@lizmariposa1]

McGrew is a very defensive, disrespectful person. I see a lot of character attacks here, and very few positive or valid arguments.

[@greglogan7706]

Yeah McGrew is obfuscating around Bart's very simple question regarding inerrancy. He is playing a game - he is playing a game because he is experiencing cognitive dissonance in his own head and he is doing everything he can to avoid the obvious. Very sad.

[@WawanGunawan-oz6gi]

Imagine that there's no categorization in books genre. And you never hear or read about bible, then you read it after you read Tolkien's or Rowling's, which is more fit to be put on fiction section in a book store ?

[@dansauber7648]

McGrew is an artful dodger.

[@T2revell]

The moment I heard that this gentleman argues FOR the gospels and the miracles I knew Bart was gonna take this easily

[@voiceofreason7690]

I think Bart should've also mentioned Matthew 2434. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matt 24:34 C. S. Lewis called this passage "the most embanassing verse in the Bible". This prophecy of Jesus failed. Jesus said "this generation". If he was talking about a future time he would've said "that generation". as much as I wish the Bible was infallible and God's word, it most certainly is not. God is apparently not the author of confusion According to the Bible but the Bible is the most confusing book I have Read in my life.

[@ericlefevre7741]

He doesn't do use Matthew 24:34 as a proof text for historical errors because doing so would destroy his rationale for dating Matthew and Luke post 70 AD and he knows it.

[@Heretical_Theology]

@@ericlefevre7741 Have you read any of Ehrman's books or listened to any other debates? Ehrman thinks this is one the things that Jesus actually said due to his principle of dissimilarity. The fact it makes little sense theologically and historically. Gospel writers and scribes are less likely to write down/copy thing that questions their ideologies which this one does. There were also many sects of Christianity who expected Jesus return (even post 70AD) when these gospels were written and probably exactly why they have Jesus saying this. Please don't be so quick to accuse Ehrman poorly : )

[@myjizzureye]

This Timothy fellow seems rather disingenuous the way he skirts around the inerrancy question. You also get the strong feeling he has rather well developed leg muscles from furiously squatting on things and stands as a strong contender as the unmasking of the "one man one jar" guy.

[@stevehays5029]

+MyJizz UrEye The topic of the debate wasn't inerrancy, but historical reliability. Ehrman tried to change the topic. Do you think something must be inerrant to be reliable?

[@myjizzureye]

steve hays No, but it should not be demonstrably false either in a testable, repeatable, falsifiable way, and the bible is exactly that.

[@stevehays5029]

+MyJizz UrEye McGrew responded to several objections. For you to assert that it's "demonstrably false" in the teeth of his counterarguments begs the question.

[@myjizzureye]

steve hays Incest as a viable means of creating an animal or human population, flat earth, talking snake, talking donkey, rubbing a dead birds blood on your toes to cure leprosy. Witches, wizards, warlocks, giants. These are all demonstrably false. Lets not forget murdering innocents as a good form of forgiveness, generational punishment, infinite punishment for finite crimes presented as being moral. I find it amusing that you are willing to admit in public you see all these things as "totally legit" and willing to look mentally ill if it lets you hold on to your invisible friend. Have you heard this friend audibly? I bet you have.

[@stevehays5029]

+MyJizz UrEye The topic of the debate was the reliability of the Gospels.

[@BiffWebster100]

This McGrew person seems to follow the school of “speak quickly and profusely about a question that wasn’t asked.”

[@707AR15]

Just answer the damn question, Tim. We all know you have a bias towards inerrancy, we just want to hear you say it.

[@reggiebuffat]

This was a fantastic debate as usual.

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

Ehrman: the names on the gospels were put on later McGrew: Polycarp frequently quotes the gospels without naming the authors, which DISPROVES YOUR POINT that the names on the gospels were put on later. Ehrman: (should have said: MORON) -did say: yes, the names on the gospels were put on later.

[@greglogan7706]

As a Christian theist, I can see right through Tim Mcgrew's blather despite, at times, his having some thought behind it but ultimately he is simply another evangelical clown.

[@johnnydark6876]

can't listen to tim anymore

[@T2revell]

Well after finally listening to and finishing this discussion I can say that I don’t think Tim really understand the level of historical method Bart is approaching this from. He sometimes borders on the fundamentalist views that Jehovas witnesses hold. And it’s obvious that even though he won’t say it outright he clearly holds the Bible to be inerrant very much. It’s this level of denial that have continued to hold education in this department back.

[@gls600]

Mc Goo must reject markan priority. Why would Matthew have to copy most of Mark?

[@GENESIS-3]

Timothy has another clip where he teaches about "01 - Who Wrote the Gospels?", but it was not possible to make any comments there, ... so here it comes. Timothy made the introduction to the argument with a Torah verse. Deut. 32:7 "Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you." --- The problem is - that´s exactly what Timothy does not do! This is talking about asking the elders of the Jews!!! Timothy reasons like this verse is talking about the Church fathers ...??? Having this kind of argument, - is very typical for most of the Christian apologetics.

[@benjiswafford1926]

Didn't know Tim McGraw did these kinds of debates...

[@wessbess]

Benji Swafford 😅

[@seanj8878]

McGrew is not even on the same level of scholarship as Ehrman.

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

Mcgrew wouldn't be able to see scholarship if he mcgrew telescopes for eyes.

[@greglogan7706]

One of Tim's errors is to fail to distinguish between Christianity and the content of the Bible.

[@ChiliMcFly1]

Why wouldn't the seed of the woman be Isaac ?

[@stevehays5029]

Incidentally, it's funny how many commenters falsely accuse McGrew of intellectual evasion for refusing to debate inerrancy, when it was-in fact-Ehrman who was guilty of intellectual evasion by laboring to dodge the actual topic of the debate, regarding the historical reliability of the Gospel, by shifting discussion to the question of inerrancy.

[@vacanttheories2218]

Nonsense. Bart wanted to know the answer to a simple, binary question. That is in no way evasion. He didn't make the entire discussion about it. He merely wanted an honest answer which McGrew refused to give. Bart then moved on. Nothing evasive about that at all.

[@stevehays5029]

To the contrary, he wanted to debate what he thought was the easier issue of inerrancy rather than reliability. Sorry you're so gullible about your heroes.

[@vacanttheories2218]

steve hays Hero? Amusing. Asking a singular, binary question is the equivalent of wanting to entirely switch the debate? That one question is proof he wanted to entirely avoid the discussion altogether? That is a non sequitur. Can you honestly not see how silly it is? A single question does not an evasion make. You may think he is my "hero" or whatever. Nonsense is nonsense, and you have said nothing but.

[@stevehays5029]

Maybe you're just hopelessly naive. No, it's not just wanting one answer to one question. Rather, depending on the answer, that's an opening to divert the entire debate into citing lots of passages that allegedly disprove the inerrancy of Scripture. That's something Bart regularly does, both in writing and debates. Sorry that your hero-worship has blinded you. Why do you think Bart kept harping on the issue if it was so secondary to the issue at hand? Because he wanted to change the debate topic.

[@vacanttheories2218]

steve hays No, you're just hopelessly biased. Whether you think the gospels are inerrant or not certainly can have an affect your opinion on how historically accurate they are. There is no evidence to suggest that he did not wish to discuss the whole topic, only your bias could bridge that gap. Yes, Ehrman regularly references the contradictions. And? Mentioning them and asking a question is not holistic subversion of the topic. The errors can be, among other things, an important indicator of reliability. If arguing with someone who believes there are not errors, yes one would have to approach the debate at a different angle, but can still approach the debate. Why would Ehrman persist in the question? Because McGrew was evading, giving answers that were disingenuous at best. *It is McGrew who causes the question of inerrancy to be brought up in the first place.* He starts with quite accurately, to his credit, describing Ehrman's positions. He then says "most [contradictions] can be easily resolved." This raises the question of whether some may be harder, but possible, to resolve. He says many historical inaccuracies turn out to be historical confirmations. Any reasonable human being, which you apparently are not, can see why someone would want to know if he believes in inerrancy. It is relevant, as it gives a theological reason for a historical conclusion. It is an important question before entering the discussion. It is also implied by the debater. It is not as though Ehrman just asked out of nowhere.

[@drexel937]

Tim McGrew does not sound logical to me, admitted the books have flaws he cannot understand. Bart is correct -- I was learning this stuff in the 90s at a local Community College through Steve L Harris. This is one reason I study Barts works, I know some of his teachings through that, he is very solid and just taught this younger professor some things.

[@laserwolf130]

Tim seems to forget that most christians seem to think the gospels are the inspired words of God ...but he wants to claim now that they can be poorly written histories like all other ancient writings ...Bart rightly points out that the gospels are just like other ancient writings ...full of mistakes and redactions ...

[@mordec1016]

laserwolf130 Tim isn't "forgetting" that, he is simply presenting a valid argument and not begging the question. If he simply assumed the Gospels were the inspired word of God, he wouldn't have to argue for anything. I feel like you misunderstood his points and this whole debate. Tim is approaching the gospels as ancient literature and biographies, to then argue that they are trustworthy accounts, so that one can then make a "best explanation" argument for the Resurrection, using probability.

[@InayetHadi]

+bartehrman please post you giving lectures, there more interesting than the debates

[@HebaruSan]

He might just be getting more offers for debates than for lectures at the moment.

[@AlecRozsa]

+Inayet Hadi I think they both have their merits. Bart is an excellent debater but also a good lecturer and informer. Everyone has a tiny bit of bias somewhere, but Bart does a good job especially in his books of setting that aside. Some of his books have catchy titles that sound like he has the inside scoop but really he's just presenting concrete historical facts.

[@ramigilneas9274]

It’s priceless that McGrew dares to accuse Ehrman of not accepting mainstream scholarship. McGrew is an inerrantist, that’s as far away from mainstream scholarship as it gets and about as fringe as Mythicism.😂

[@kaz007]

hmm good to see people of the book still debating the book...the very fact it has inaccuracies here ,there and everywhere shouldn't get in the way of a good best seller...

[@davidr1620]

It can be quite frustrating at times how Bart tries to make himself out to be the only objective person, and everyone else he disagrees with must have tremendous influences so as to overcome their reason. And the biggest problem with it is, it wouldn't make any difference to the soundness of one's arguments even if they are incapable of being objective.

[@sergeblain1712]

Be nice if their was something about Timothy McGrew. Academic credentials. Is he associated with any colleges and/or Universities.

[@stevehays5029]

+Serge Blain There's a little thing called "Google" search. Try it some time.

[@michaelanderson4849]

Tim sure has earned a master in snake oil philosphy. Such slithering around a quite simple yes or no question can only be done by someone on expert level. 🙄

[@georgepenton6023]

The Catholic view of all this: the scriptures are inerrant on matters of faith and morals but not in all timeline or historical detail. The cleansing of the temple----when did it happen and did they actually have to close down the temple for awhile? That's not important---the important part is that religion-for-personal-profit is wrong and that Jesus made a stand against it. How many times did the cock crow before Peter denies Christ? That's not important. What is important is that Peter denied Christ.

[@patrickmchenry2217]

I think Bart could rebuild a V8 engine however I think Tim couldn’t. Not sure why I think that.

[@onethreeify]

The moderator is really good imo.

[@dorson723]

Are there possible to have a Christian scholar on Christianity?

[@JDVmusicSound]

What exactly is Timothy McGrew talking about?

[@ianyboo]

Jesus mythicists aren't claiming that Jesus never existed we are only saying the burden of proof for his existence hasn't been met. That might sound like the same thing but there is a subtle distinction between those two statements.

[@T2revell]

Virtual Willis exactly

[@theyeticlutch3486]

Ive listened to a lot of these debates and a lot of the great courses lectures on stuff like this and it always seems to come down to whether or not you want to have faith in that the claims are true or not. Can anyone link me to a debate between 2 neutrals on this subject. I.E. someone who holds Tims positions that isnt a christian. All ive found is the only people arguing for the claims being true are christians every time

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

Thanks for the new vid, Dr. Ehrman! I hope we can look forward to that debate with Robert Price. I'm one of those atheists who find the mythicists quite silly.

[@LogosTheos]

Robert will tear him apart

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

LogosTheos We shall see. Personally, I don't want to see anyone "torn apart", I want to see an enlightened exchange between intellectuals bringing to bear their best evidence and reason.

[@Mr_T.]

I like both scholars, I hope it's a draw:)

[@chrisraimondi6272]

Really like Bart, but I’m gonna have to pass on this one, cause his opponent is just so intellectually dishonest, I’d rather listen to something else he’s been in than continue on this one. Bart is great, but there’s probably better episodes to listen to. I started watching the debates to find flaws in Bart’s reasoning. But after watching like 8 or 9, I haven’t seen a single one where he\is opponent is even close.

[@oscarcoronel3021]

I think James White does a very good job debating him

[@favoritemelodies9995]

Tim McGraw seems to be incapable of giving a simple reply..

[@rhamlyn100]

Is McGrew a regular caller to the Atheist Experience? I've heard that arrogant , supercilious voice before.

[@Robert.Deeeee]

Why does Bart always join in with the mythicists bashing? Robert M Price is a lot better then these Bible inerrancy fundamentalists types, they're bloody infuriating.

[@parkerflop]

Mmm........mythicist have a real break from reality.... However most Christians aren't Evangelical and don't have the crazy view of the Bible that they do

[@Robert.Deeeee]

Mustafa M at least Price's admits(unlike the inerrantists) his hypothesis might be wrong. I just wished the fundamentalists would stop trying pass apologetics off as objective scholarship.

[@parkerflop]

***** Ha yeah...Evangelicals hate the very existence of Biblical scholarship more than anything except maybe Muslims.

[@jazerlights8870]

When Bart says that Jesus would have been arrested for closing down the temple and the fact that there is no account of him being arrested somehow negates him doing so is to abandon other accounts and even the very notion of who Jesus was, that Jesus being Jesus more than a man could avoid such normative happenings under divine assistance.

[@atomac23]

Debate like this are absurd until christians explained what is revealed what is inspired text and what is narrated text by some yahoo who claims it is divine. Christians are worried what writers of Gospels said but what Jesus said who cares.

[@timmarrier]

I just love listening to theists babble, makes me feel normal. Secular historians like Ehrman have no issue whatsoever with the gradients of plausibility and certainty, where theists look for any shimmer of possibility and inflate it into plausible certainty, then lock arms and guard it with vitriol. You know, because that's how God operated so much in the bible, with vaguery and inference. Like the 185,000 Assyrians that died while sleeping by the heroic angels...definitely have to search hard for God there, but boy when you find him, he's there....and lots of blood.

[@seekerp67]

As always, the opponents of Mr. Ehrman cannot dispute the facts, and end up sounding like bumbling idiots attempting to argue semantics or refuting his methods, a futile endeavor to say the least. That is what happens when your historical and theological positions are ruled by emotion and blind and/or programmed faith, and not intellect.

[@stevehays5029]

+seekerp67 Ironic accusation considering the fact that your comment is nothing but a string of emotive adjectives. Revealing to see the chronically anti-intellectual quality of comments by unbelievers on this thread.

[@timmyg44]

+steve hays, half the debate was a series of straw man arguments against Bart. It reaches its peak of amusement when Bart has to insist that all he said was there is not extensive evidence for the authorship of the gospels as Tim excitedly lied about. Then he has the balls to claim Bart is straw manning.

[@stevehays5029]

+Timothy Gale So you can't actually refute a single think McGrew said. You simply resort to question-begging characterizations ("straw man arguments") because you don't have any real arguments to offer.

[@WolfestoneManor]

This is why I can't stand philosophers. They think they are now a jack of all trades and can be cited as an expert on anything.

[@oaktreet4335]

To Bart, what is “critical” is what he says. It is all circular.

[@ramigilneas9274]

And in reality Timothy can’t even accept the most obvious errors and contradictions in the fairytales of the Bible because there can not be any errors in the Bible. It’s as circular as it gets.

[@akl561]

I don't know why ordinary historical methods should apply to the question of Jesus's divinity. If Jesus were divine, doesn't that make him incredibly extra-ordinary? If the creator of the universe (or his son, or both) were walking around Israel, I think it would have been recorded a lot better than what we see in the gospels. Debates like this (about human opinion on what constitutes sufficient evidence) should apply to the historical activities of human beings. The type of evidence discussed here is no basis for believing in a divine being.

[@stevehays5029]

+akl561 You fail to explain how that would make him "incredibly extraordinary". You fail to explain how, if true, that would have been recorded "a lot better" than we see in the gospels. You're just telling us your state of mind rather than giving actual reasons for your reaction.

[@akl561]

+steve hays You're right, I guess I should not assume Jesus was "extraordinary". One nagging little question that brings up: Why is there a religion named for him?

[@akl561]

+akl561 Hmm... Steve appears to have deleted his comment that I need to demonstrate that Jesus was extraordinary...I wonder why.

[@akl561]

+Tony Inosencio I agree. I posted that before listening to part 2. I thought McGrew went off the rails in that one when he defended the veracity of the gospels based on the level of persecution described in Acts. That just isn't a valid way of defending the veracity of closely related documents.

[@stevehays5029]

+akl561 So you're telling me that you can't remember your own statement. You used the phrase "incredibly extraordinary". That's what I quoted. That consists of a noun modified by an adjective. You then respond to me by misquoting yourself, as if you only said "extraordinary" minus the adjective. And, know, I didn't delete my comment. Do you have any other confusions to share?

[@jkellyid]

Bart thrusts straight for an adhominem trap straight out of the gate in the guise of unmasking a hidden presupposition. Tim does a good job not falling into that trap. Debates may be had in opposition to ones convictions. Let alone how Tim doesn't put forward his personal convictions ahead of the subject.

[@CountBrass]

Pretty devastating rebuttal on Ehrman's part, around 28:00 and thereafter. McGrew never really recovers after that. As someone with degrees both in history and philosophy, but with more advanced degrees in philosophy -- BA in History, PhD in philosophy -- I would never go up against someone like Ehrman on these sorts of historical questions, unless I really knew my stuff and was able to put aside my own, personal faith commitments. It's clear that neither of these things are true of McGrew, which is why he lost this debate so badly. James White was more up to debating Bart, but he is so personally unappealing, with such an unpleasant manner, that he loses rhetorically, before the arguments have even got going.

[@hzoonka4203]

Timothy J.McGrew suffers from what is known Cognitive dissonants,the next level.

[@5pid3rman80]

I agree that it is necessary for every Christian to fully examine the tenets of his faith, that said, I enjoyed the topics of discussion, ,and would love to have audience with a reasonable critic like Ehrman, generally the atheists I meet are vitriolic and dismissive without ever presenting a dissenting argument other than "you must be an idiot fer believin' in some bearded man in dem skies *tobacco spit*" #hyperbole

[@georgepenton6023]

Did Matthew write Matthew? Maybe someone in Matthew's entourage wrote it (all the apostles had entourages), perhaps someone skilled in Greek (although I heard a priest on EWTN say that Jerome had the original Aramaic version in his posssession). Did Mark write Mark, Luke Luke, or John John? Again maybe some Greek speaking member of each one of these men's entourage drafted it, and Mark, Luke, and John signed the work. Maybe the stylistic differences in the Pauline letters could be explained by the possibility that different members of Paul's particular entourage did the actual writing. Scholars like Ehrman seem to go in and say, oh, the Bible is obviously bogus, then they seek to prove their own presupposition.

[@garyjaensch7143]

Bart try’s to imply athiests are right because theologians believe in what they say.!!! That has to be the weakest argument I’ve ever heard.

[@keiferalford7961]

Tim McGrew.."I'm right because, feelings"!! Ehrman.."The historical Jesus..." McGrew.."Racist!!!" Ehrman..."But,.." McGrew.."Supremacist!! It's feelings!!"

[@agnesdei2846]

haha 15 minutes Mr Ehrman tries to establish that those with belief are automatically biased, whereas he 'has no firm opinion' and is untainted by bias. There is no deceit more easily accepted than self deceit.

[@Heretical_Theology]

everyone has a bias. Everyone. Ehrman has admitted and knows this. I've followed him for a while now and he's probably the least biased historian that I've listened to. He seeks truth. Christians, but definition, seek a religious ideology making then fundamentally biased. This is what he means and it's not difficult to understand that.

[@myopenmind527]

If Christians need to have another reason to doubt Christianity then Tim provides them with a cringeworthy performance. Is there a worse apologist out there?

[@jd2981]

Sye ten lmao

[@dozer33268]

Jim confused and deceived Christian

[@nabeelyounis7949]

There is not much meat in Ehrman's objections most of them are decades ago which have been refuted many times.

[@shubashmorar1298]

Ooooooo⁸

[@imageinkdesign]

Bert never fails to make ad hominem attacks, such as. "Tim must not be that well read".. that 'speaks' volumes. For anyone to have studied how the scriptures reveal prophecy, within typologies, all the time allowing for man's free will..and walk away. . unimpressed -sad.

[@wessbess]

Victoria Layrisse McGrew was on the attack I thought

[@simclimie6045]

I'm disappointed with Dr. Tim mcgrew William Lane Craig is the best debater especially against Bart Ehrman...

[@camerafree]

Bart's skepticism is really annoying sometimes. It really takes he out of the road when he's debating. In the end of the day, you can't deny that there are really good reasons to believe that the gospels were write by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you want hold to your skepticism, feel free for it.

[@AakeTraak]

+Renan Rovaris "In the end of the day, you can't deny that there are really good reasons to believe that the gospels were write by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." That was funny.

[@gustavgus4545]

AakeTraak Nah. What he said is true.

[@KingDrak3]

Bart admits he being picky and he not holding any position or standard...

[@johnbacsa1616]

Bart Errorman.

[@dah8914]

Though ehrman has this idea he can prove the fallacies of period of christian evolvement he cannot explain away intelligent design. Though I am a christian and he is agnostic who is his god, himself? When he dies who led the better life him with no reward or myself with a reward? The perfect life is self explanatory God created and there is no question heaven is real and eternal damnation is real you choose.

[@dahveed72]

Of course there's a question you dimwit. Even the idea of heaven/afterllife has been evolving and changing for thousands of years. JFC

[@boreopithecus]

He doesn't have a god, that's what atheism means.

[@KingDrak3]

Bart just loses and says thats right and moves on. 🤣😂🤣. No wonder he stepped away from Christ.

[@MRC-vr5pu]

Bart got owned