Don't Blindly Follow "Biblical Scholarly Consensus"

[@TestifyApologetics]

Quick disclaimer: given current events maybe I would have picked a different illustration than um...needle stuff. I don't have a hard stance or a dog in the fight. Let's not talk about it here since it is off topic and I don't want negative attention from the eyes at KZbin. Can we do that? Cool.

[@petery6432]

Great. Now I want to know what Needle stuff you're talking about and why it's bad, and yet I can't.

[@morganpoole8208]

He mentioned Vaccinations at the start of the video

[@petery6432]

@@morganpoole8208 Oh yeah, anti vax is a thing

[@hiddenrambo328]

God makes it so we can test God to know his true so I will follow no man without testing constantly! If you walk into a house and three children greet you and you want to know something and you know their father knows it that's why you are there. The children say he is not available but they can answer your questions child 1 assures you they have tested child 2 and they are knowledgeable and trustworthy on subjects A and B and child 2 assures you child 3 has been tested by child 2 and child 3 is knowledgeable on subjects C and D but now a 4th child appears and he says 1-3 are wrong and children 1-3 say 4 is wrong who should you follow? These children are students and school systems their assurance is diplomas and certificates none is above another they are all children all equal under their father (God) he is the only authority no one else. You should listen to all 4 and test all 4's information. Follow no one blindly or blinded by earlier trust even if someone has been right you should still test and check for yourself and be aware of trust transferring example A person trusts their local officers they are 3 good guys those police they trust when they go to another town to visit with different police the person's trust transfers from the 3 individual officers to the badge or police in general now they trust an unknown and untested group assuming they are like those 3 officers back home.. Or Man trusts person A person A works for group B. Man thinks group B must also be ok because person A works there Man now trusts group B. Schools teach the answers they want, not how to think and be intelligent. I am sure most of us have had a test where we know the right answer but the test requires an incorrect answer to to be marked as correct this is conditioning and conforming that is all structured education does if they say 1+1=22 than 22 is the right answer until they change their mind or update not intelligent, So being '"qualified" or an "authority" doesn't mean they know anything or are intelligent or should be trusted it just means they are good parrots who said what they were told to say. People need to take back the trust they have given to diplomas and certificates and "qualified", "authority" and start testing and judging for ourselves and not saying well they are blah so they would most likely know really should i think "professional" atheists would most likely know if there is a God so there probably isn't one because they are "pro" atheists?! or Religious leaders in Israel care about the Messiah so they are the ones most likely to know who the messiah is and they say no to Jesus is that most likely true and correct than?! That is just bad reasoning we should question everything or everything that interacts with us you need a car you research it first you need medication you should research first most don't but you should if people did this many issues would stop being issues people would fall prey to misinformation less often and basic knowledge would increase, all positives and if anyone is against it saying i only trust these people they are real X that is your conditioning and remember Hitler had real people real Drs who tricked and lied to and hurt on purpose and on accident through mistaken "education" real people they didn't want free thinking either they wanted everyone to conform to the same thinking anyone who thought different was bad or dumb traitor sympathiser now days call them conspiracy theorists not to be trusted they are not real X. I'm not saying don't believe anything or trust anyone I am saying be discerning even if you trust A and A says buy this don't just buy it think about it first people don't and this is why endorsements / sponsors exist to take advantage of that fact oh A says this brand is good so must be good, don't do that don't just leap look first don't just trust but test and keep doing it because we are all wrong at some point but i could be wrong about that so better not trust that but test it.

[@truthmatters7573]

@@petery6432 it is a thing to the degree that any mild criticism, hesitance, or skepticism will be given that label. It's deliberate slander designed to intimidate. We're rushing and politicizing the science to an unprecedented degree and squashing any voice that dares ask: are you sure this is safe? There is no robust public debate at a time when it is most needed. I would say the same lesson Testify taught us about Biblical scholarship applies to any scholarship that has life altering implications, and applies specifically to these needles, because there are many scientific red flags here similar to how the atheist bible scholars' work shows biblical red flags. What's more, when it comes to medical decisions in general, we follow the principle of informed consent. You are ultimately responsible for your health and it is your responsibility to seek out the information necessary to come to your own conclusion which may differ from that of some medical professionals, because medicine isn't black and white like maths or physics are. Medical experts make mistakes all the time, and if you are on autopilot deferring to the experts you won't be able to catch them in their mistakes and possibly prevent their consequences. (Examples omitted for brevity.) So for that reason I agree with Testify, needles, and probably anything medical is a tricky example, because medicine is a very personal thing.

[@noahboughdy2648]

Great points. Not to mention the peer pressure involved in biblical studies to “not be a fundamentalist”. There is a critical zeitgeist that influences trends in scholarship. Academics require the approval of others to get articles published, which can lead to a kind of group think, especially in the humanities and social sciences which don’t have a rigid, objective standard like the hard sciences do.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

And yet. much of the criticism directed at the Bible by people like Ehrman et al are based on a hyperliteral reading of the text that is quite similar to fundamentalists

[@MrSeedi76]

@@Michael-bk5nz bingo! Ehrman is a "fallen evangelical". And like all fundamentalists (even ex-) he thinks the gospels need to be 100 percent correct about everything or they have no value at all as historical sources. What he doesn't see is that the gospels very closely follow the structure of other ancient biographies. Do we dismiss these biographies because they maybe claimed that a Roman emperor has done miracles? No, we don't. So, yes, he has a fundamentalist position.

[@j.mtherandomguy8701]

​@@Michael-bk5nzWell that is how they determine the original meaning of the text, through a literal reading of scripture. It will be against any notion of honest academic practice to follow the traditional beliefs of Christians or whoever holy scriptures that they are studying.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

@@j.mtherandomguy8701 and there we have it, the attitude that is at the root of the current crisis in Biblical studies, the assumption that there has to be an opposition between religion and scholarship, and that if you can't find one, you must keep searching untl you do

[@Robespierre-lI]

There's no peer pressure. It's simply that the historical research shows the problems with fundamentalist perspectives.

[@__.Sara.__]

As Mike Winger has said, there's good Bart and bad Bart. I really like him, but no one, and no scholar, is infallible.

[@capedcrusader1489]

that is indeed very true.... God bless you sister!

[@thecloudtherapist]

MW probably got that from William Lane Craig (critiques and debates with BE are on YT) who shows the absurdity that BE shows in his so-called scholarly work.

[@equinoxproject2284]

Same with science, there's good science and bad science. The good science doesn't conflict with my theological commitments, the bad science does.

[@kellinwitte7343]

​@@equinoxproject2284Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I would point out that scientific data doesn't have to be ignored in order to support the biblical claim. For example, with the rock layers that were supposedly laid down over the course of millions of years. Dating rocks by radioactive decay is flawed, because it requires the assumption of no contamination, a constant decay rate, and that all daughter atoms developed in-situ, and the rock initially formed with all parent atoms. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 1980s, they dated the newly hardened lava rocks that reshaped the landscape, and these relatively new rocks came back as almost a million years old, because of the argon trapped within after the argon gas and smoke released from the volcano. Some diamonds have been dated as being older than what the earth itself supposedly is. The Bible is the Word of God. It told us long before scientists studied the matter that the universe had a beginning, that all humans are equal members of one race, that there are springs at the bottom of the ocean, that one should wash with running water when dealing with disease, and many other amazing things. More importantly, the Bible tells us about our sin. Let me ask you, do you think you're a good person? Let's say there is a Heaven, do you think you're good enough to go there? Well, how many lies have you told in your life? How many times have you stolen something, even if it was small? Jesus taught that if you look at someone to lust after them, you've committed adultery in your heart, how many times have you done that? Jesus also taught that if you're angry at your brother without a cause, or if you hate, it's judged as seriously as murder, how many times have you done that? How many times have you coveted what didn't belong to you, or dishonored your parents? How often have you put something before God in your heart and life? How often have you taken God's Name in vain, used it like a cuss word, when you wouldn't insult a flawed human you still respect in that way? You and I, and everyone, have broken God's Law by wronging God directly and wronging our fellows. Because God is holy and just, He must punish sinners with death and hell. The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death." Also, it's impossible to "balance out" our sins with little good deeds or religious works. If a murderer tells a human judge that he's a good person or he'll never do it again, the judge won't be impressed, of course he shouldn't do it again. Flawed, finite humans could never reconcile themselves to the holy, infinite God. The Bible says, "Our righteousness is like filthy rags before God." The good news is that God reconciled us to Himself. God sent His one and only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins. He paid the price so we wouldn't have to. He was the sacrifice we couldn't supply. If you're in court with a stack of fines you can't pay, you're in trouble, but if someone steps in and pays the fines for you, you can be dismissed from the courtroom because the law has been satisfied. That's what Jesus did for us, and He did it because God loved us and wanted to show us grace. And after Jesus was buried, He rose from the dead on the third day, defeating death and proving what He claimed about Himself. So now if you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, turn away from your sins, and trust in Jesus rather than your own merit, then God will give you a new heart with new desires, and you'll be saved and have everlasting life. You have to accept the pardon that Jesus offers by believing in Him. In 1830, a man robbed the U.S mail and assaulted an official who caught him. He was sentenced to death, but President Andrew Johnson sent him a pardon. Surprisingly, he rejected the pardon. The case went to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Marshall wrote the courts opinion, that a pardon is like a deed, which needs to be delivered to complete its purpose, and an important part of delivery is acceptance. If it hasn't been accepted, it hasn't completed its purpose, and the court found no power to force it on him. The man was executed, even though he could've been saved if he accepted the pardon. It's the same with all of us. I pray you think about all this. Search the Scriptures and come to God with a humble, open heart. I'll talk with you about any questions you have, if you want. It's the most important decision you'll ever make. God bless you.

[@danielbrowniel]

@@equinoxproject2284 It isn't that simple to pursue truth. When one considers the enormous number of ways that people falsely make conclusions you see that the scientific community screws up all the time. The scientific community cares about consensus while an appeal to popularity never stopped being a fallacy. Every professional community cares deeply about asking the experts all while an appeal to authority never stopped being a fallacy. Just because something is a fallacy/ it does not mean it's false. Appeals to authority and popularity carry some weight, but a BETTER ARGUMENT should always trump a WORSE ARGUMENT. So it isn't about cherry picking the science you like (which is an appeal to BIAS). You look at the arguments people make on both sides and consider who is losing something or gaining something to maintain their position. I have considered myself if the age of the earth is much older than the Bible would suggest but I can't jump ship for a group of people that still teaches pangea when we know the continental plates form a sphere. And so, it has me with all these questions? can the earth survive being pierced by an ice comet? and would that steam gather in the center of the earth and would the phase change confuse seismologists interpretations? idk? but I do know the authority wouldn't dare ask those questions, that would be heresy, yes?

[@vinnygiggidy]

I agree arguments from authority are not good. An atheist starting a sentence with "but Bart Ehrman said" is just trying to win an argument. If you truly have done the work for yourself you don't need Bart Ehrman you can support your claims yourself.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Well said ! One should always state their argument and show their work *first*. After this if they want to quote a scholar for a supplementary opinion, then it’s appropriate.

[@EyeToob]

Excellent point! This is why we should consult commentaries as the last thing when we do our own Bible studies. We do the work ourselves so others can judge if we are handling the Scriptures correctly -- we should not quote commentaries as if they have the last word on what the Bible says. We read commentaries in order to see if we missed something after we have done our own studying.

[@sjg639]

Agreed. Citing an authority works as contributing evidence to support a claim but is never infallible proof. No expert HUMAN authority is immune to error, and it's not a valid argument to demand acceptance of some given authority as proof. When it comes to God's claim to infallibility, I think he has demonstrated it in every way possible so even here is no demand to accept it blindly and without reason.

[@vinnygiggidy]

@@sjg639 well, even if God exists and is infallible that doesn't mean we are interpreting that message correctly. It's why a Calvinist and a Baptist can read the same Bible and get different meanings from it. How do you know you've received God's actual message and interpreted that message correctly? Say the words "God said" is just as an appeal to authority as saying Bart Ehrman said. You still require evidence.

[@sjg639]

@@vinnygiggidy Agreed; confirming whether or not a given authority actually said what they are represented as saying is a separate consideration from the reliability of what they indeed said when there is no question that they said it. In the case of messages from God, those who are of his flock are said to be able to recognize his voice. If you've ever received an odd message from a friend whose online accounts were compromised by a scammer, knowing your friend should have made it easy to recognize the fraudulent message as not having actually been sent by them. And in my experience and listening to testimonies of others, when God speaks to the heart it's unmistakable to the person that the message is from God regardless of the conduit through which the message is delivered. There are naturally many who falsely claim to have a message from God - things of genuine value always attract counterfeit imitation - but note that God provides just a bit extra to set the genuine above the counterfeit. If you ever have need of wisdom to sort between two competing claims, the safest strategy is to seek the necessary wisdom and discernment directly from God.

[@austinapologetics2023]

Jesus predicts his death three times Ehrman: he is confused and didn't expect this

[@davidstrelec610]

Bart Erhman fans defend his view by claiming that these are prophecies after the fact... but there is just as much external evidence as internal evidence that predictions of his death are just put into his mouth, none no evidence!!!

[@austinlincoln3414]

lol

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@davidstrelec610 Yup lol ! Not to mention that, their argument is poor exegesis. If you take a document as it is in order to make a point, then you must let your opponent take that document as it is to make a counter argument. Once there is an agreement on what the text in its entirety is saying, THEN one can move on to another topic and discuss textual credibility. Otherwise it’s shifting the goalposts

[@tomveres5043]

To be honest those predictions all come from the synoptic gospels (not mentioned in John) and we all know they all drew from a common source. In fact Matthew and Mark pretty much copied each other, almost word by word: "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matthew 16:21-23) "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8:31-33) This is a relatively easy prediction to make when you claim you're divine in a land where people got stoned for breaking arguably less severe commandments of the Jewish law, such as adultery. It's like going to Saudi Arabia and reading a Bible in public and predicting that you'll get arrested for it. A harder prediction would be the destruction of the temple and even Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus probably did predict that. He just said: "oh, well, people predict such things all the time".

[@supergoji7511]

@@tomveres5043 You do Know Q origin is still only speculation and theory and not confirmed?

[@malvokaquila6768]

So true. I love pointing out Dr. Erhmans popular work is at odds with his scholarly work. I use him as a source with atheists. Because of this.

[@williamjames212]

When Muslims use Bart Erhman as a source against me, I usually tell them that Bart Erhman is an athiests and that I do not trust his sources at all. Show me an early Church father. I use early church fathers to refute bart Erhman and muslim claims.

[@malvokaquila6768]

@@williamjames212 right why would I be using him on a Christian again?? I use him against atheists. Mostly mythers.

[@williamjames212]

Amir Khan ohh that's good because it shows them that Bart Erhman believes that Islam is a false religion so they do not need to use him.

[@pikapi6993]

​@@williamjames212 You can use Ehrman to refute Muslims arguments. Ehrman thinks Islam is ridiculous

[@williamjames212]

@pikapi6993 Yeah, I love ❤️ Bart Erhman because he is an atheist historian who refutes Islam. He says that crucifixion occured and this refutes the Quran notion that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross.

[@thewolfes146]

Yeah, I remember reading "How Jesus Became God", and Ehrman claiming that the Gospel of Mark doesn't depict Jesus as being God, because that idea developed later on. I'm thinking, it literally starts out quoting Isaiah 40:3, and applying it to John the Baptist! Mark is clearly telling us that Jesus is God!

[@slade8863]

@@davethebrahman9870 ““a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ”” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬ “A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭

[@slade8863]

@@davethebrahman9870 Wait who do you think Elohim is? How is Mark quoting Isaiah inaccurately? He is literally quoting Isaiah 40:3 verbatim. You mean Mark 10:18 not Mark 10:21. Jesus saying this doesn't have to mean He isn't Good. He simply said "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone", I can see how you can leap to the conclusion that therefore Jesus isn't God but you need to realise He didn't even implicitly say I'm not God. I can just say Jesus trying to make this man understand the implication of Jesus being a "Good teacher". It's best for you to remain in the topic of the verses I quoted. Because If Mark 1 is true then My interpretation of Mark 10:18 is more plausible.

[@slade8863]

@@davethebrahman9870 "If you think the two passages are precisely the same, you must have dyslexia. Elohim is the one God of Israel, not a Jewish carpenter." That's the point. Why would Mark quote that in reference to Jesus if He didn't think Jesus is God. "And your interpretation of Mark 10 is forced and theologically motivated. Why do you think Matthew alters the verse, if not to remove the very obvious implication?" It's not forced. It's a consistent reading if I'm to be faithful to the text. You need to substantiate your claim about Mark 1 before suggesting I'm forcing anything. I can also reference Mark 2:28 to promote my view but you have to first prove Isaiah 40:3 isn't about Jesus.

[@slade8863]

@@davethebrahman9870 it’s as though you don’t understand my point. This is what St Mark says: “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”- “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ”” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭ The messenger is John the Baptist. The Lord is Jesus. If we go back to where mark is quoting from which is Isaiah 40:3, it says : “A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40‬:‭3‬ ‭ Which means St Mark believes Jesus is God. Hardcore deductive argument.

[@slade8863]

@@davethebrahman9870 1)Pretty sure I do but ok 2) It is both from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. 3) Jesus is literally called the Lord by implcation of those verses. Mark is pretty clear. And no, That Father isn't the same person as the Son. 4) Again, address those verses first before calling my interpretation into question. So far it seems to be more consistent than yours.

[@Mel2023.]

I encourage everyone to look up Tim Mackie as he has a PHD in Hebrew Studies and is an amazing teacher who affirms a strong belief in Christ!

[@MarcosElMalo2]

lol

[@kingarth0r]

Another thing to realize is that biblical studies itself is a very small field of research when compared to science and reaching "scholarly consensus" really just means "a few notable scholars wrote and nobody else takes time to investigate". Yet I hear all these people on the internet put "scholarly consensus" on the same level as scientific consensus.

[@thiago292]

That's a really good point

[@douglasmcnay644]

Does it drive anyone else nuts when people say "Scientists agree..." or "Science says..." or "the consensus is"? Somehow consensus has become equivalent to truth.

[@MrSeedi76]

Especially considering that we're talking about concensus about the interpretation of one single book! One just has to think about how stupid it would be when someone said: "Scholars agree that book xyz means this." It doesn't matter. A concensus in theology is quite different from one in, let's say physics.

[@Basta11]

Imagine a criminal trial where the jury is 1000 extremely skeptical independently minded people with a great deal of expertise in criminal forensics. To get them into a consensus would be very difficult unless the evidence is very very convincing. The bar would have to be beyond not just reasonable but all plausible doubts. It’s not that a scientific consensus is equivalent to the truth but it’s the best expert opinion on the subject matter as far as we know it.

[@DaDitka]

The events of the last few years should confirm what you have said.

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

@@Basta11 Well that's the mistake. People aren't all independently minded. People have biases, people can be indoctrinated into a school of thinking, sometimes there's monetary influence too. These factors can advertently and inadvertently influence scholarly consensus. People can become very set in their beliefs and unknowingly look more for evidence supporting their pre established conception rather than just what the evidence actually says. If this is habit is strong enough it can go beyond just cherry picking, and result in twisting the evidence to your liking. This can happen in any field of study. In the scientific realm it's certainly more difficult for this problem to take hold, but it still does.

[@thiago292]

And, as someone else in the comment section pointed out, biblical studies is not at all a large study field so a "scientific consensus" on it basically means a couple of scholars agree and nobody else bothers to check (mostly because there isn't anybody else).

[@Mike00513]

Ehrman when it comes to the reliability of the New Testament will deliver half truths, and not the whole context.

[@peacepipe6695]

Yeah that’s because he wants money for his bald head

[@passthebaton7916]

Great thought! I always loved how even though there was apparently a "school of prophets" as some versions call it during the time of Elijah yet when he was looking for the one who would take his mantle he went out and found the guy plowing with the oxen!

[@DanielApologetics]

Brilliant video! Added to favorite playlist.

[@DavidStirneman]

God shows no partiality. We would do well to remember this also.

[@carloswater7]

I have purchased three of Bart Ehrman's books. I've noticed he teaches his opinion without showing the evidence when supposedly trying to "debunk" a Christian claim. And many skeptics and Atheists will take that as true. Let's be careful and let us be wise

[@Assyrianking507]

@@carloswater7 I notice the same you have said

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Hhmmmm indeed

[@petery6432]

I feel like any appeal to authority should be coupled with an actual case. Like, instead of saying "Well Bart Erhman says x about this topic", it should be like "Here's X,Y,Z facts, which causes Bart Erhman to say x on this topic"

[@isidoreaerys8745]

This is true.

[@SupremeSkeptic]

In other words, if they appeal to authority fallaciously, call them out on it

[@colepriceguitar1153]

Most of these scholars work at secular schools which by law prohibit teaching that favors a certain religion or any religion at all. This means if they came across any evidence for the veracity of the Bible, they wouldn’t be able to teach it.

[@Vinnymanvinny1]

Do you have any evidence of this? What law prohibits this?

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@Vinnymanvinny1 The establishment clause of the first amendment. It's why creationism or intelligent design is banned from state schools.

[@trepinne6840]

​@@colepriceguitar1153 banned from state schools or banned from beeing tought as science?

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@trepinne6840 that’s the only area where it’s been tried but I’m pretty confident that if a history teacher said that Isaiah predicted the future of Cyrus the great and suggested that was indicative of divine inspiration he would be reprimanded.

[@trepinne6840]

@@colepriceguitar1153 so the second then? And not actually banned from state schools.

[@matthirn7858]

As C.S. Lewis said, modern scholarship is problematic regarding scripture. He pointed out that the odds of the scholar being wrong about one thing might be small like 5%. The odds of getting two things wrong is higher than 5% and goes up dramatically as we go on to additional analysis. Lewis pointed out that even modern contemporaries who were living at the same time and with all the advantages of knowing the culture as well as the author were frequently wrong about his own work. If contemporaries can't get it right, why would we expect modern scholars to be spot on about Jesus or scripture.

[@reasonforge9997]

Erhman is so smart he knows the culture of Second Temple Judaism more than second Temple Jews did.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

The video icon you showed of Dr. Ehrman's interview with Paulogia was an interesting video when I saw it. There was one point when they were talking about the authorship of the Gospels, and they brought up Papias as a source that confirms the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Dr. Ehrman responded that Papias isn't a reliable source, because his theology isn't the same as modern theology (or something like that). He pressed the issue further, claiming that Papias also claimed Mark "left nothing out of his gospel; -and his is the shortest gospel." This claim did give me pause. Fortunately, I myself was doing my research into the historical evidence for Jesus, and shortly after watching this video, I came across the quote from Papias: “‘This also the presbyter said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the need of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things WHICH HE HAD HEARD, and not to state any of them falsely.”’” -Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 39. "Not omitting anything" and "Being careful not to omit anything which he had heard" are two very different statements. But beyond Eusebius' commentary on Papias' writings in Ecclesiastical History, book 3, Chapter 39, we have other sources for the authorship of the Gospels: Irenaeus of Lyons: Against Heresies chapter 1 Titus Flavious Clement: The Instructors Book 1, Chapter 6 and The Miscellanies Book 1, chapter 23 Quintus Tertullian: Against Marcion chapter 2 and 5.

[@patrickbuckley7259]

Holy crap, how does an expert make that kind of error?

[@kiroshakir7935]

​@@patrickbuckley7259 In other areas Bart clarifies his objection That he doesn't think it's possible for mark to write everything he had heard from peter If he only wrote a book that can be read in two hours Which is A good objection Certainly peter would have said a lot more than just what mark wrote But Clement's account explains this by placing the inspiration for the gospel in a single sermon by peter which peter likely repeated like a dozen times Similar to how a pastor or a priest may give the same sermon when commentating on a specific passage of scripture

[@isidoreaerys8745]

The reason is we have earlier apologetic defenses of the historicity of the gospels that do not assign the given authorship. It’s extremely suspicious that even in the 1st century people thought these stories smelled fishy. And in the writings of Paul the constant insistence that he’s telling you the truth. Who else does that but a liar?

[@christiangadfly24]

I started as a fundamentalist, became an atheist when I was 25, but I later became a Christian again and am slowly growing more conservative over time. I first realized there was a big problem in atheism when I saw the problems with mythicism. This made me question all of them as a movement. Later I started questioning Ehrman because he would claim that Jesus was based on Apollonius, or at least imply it, but if you know the timeline this is absurd. Now, as a lawyer and a Christian, I am very comfortable with being the minority view in a room as long as I'm based on evidence.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I wouldn’t exactly say that Conservative scholarship is in the minority, I would say most scholars are moderate, you get a lot of people like Dale Allison, or Mark Goodcare.

[@williambillycraig1057]

As I see it, the issue is that New Testament scholars tend to live in an academic bubble. For example, take the gospels; Dr. Ehrman, the former Christian turned agnostic, points to contradictions in the Gospel. That is where the same event is addressed by two or more gospel writers with slightly different accounts recorded. For the most part, the scholars will typically say this is an issue that points to problems in the text and then say something snary like, "which gospel writer is correct, Mark or Mathew?" The scholars want to see seamless overlap between the gospel accounts where one story mirrors the other. While this would suit those in the academic bubble but it would fail in other areas, such as what is seen in real life. J. Warner Wallace, the former atheist, turned Christian sees these discrepancies differently. Wallace is a cold-case detective, and in his line of work, Wallace is used to having only written testimony at times, while other times, Wallace could have access to the eyewitnesses. As a detective, Wallace has stated that if there were multiple witnesses, one would expect to see inconsistencies; if the stories have no discrepancies, the officer would then have reasons to doubt the testimonies. To a detective, the gospel accounts read as they should, if they were real eyewitness accounts. On Wallace's blog, Jim Wallace speaks to this line of thought. Jim writes, "But I have noticed, even when I know for a fact that two people were present and witnessed the same event, they almost never agree on every detail. In fact, it is so rare for two witnesses to completely agree that it would arouse suspicion if they did." (1) If the eyewitness's testimony were seamless, without contradictions, one might think that the witnesses were in collusion with each other. A collusion is a "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose." (2) This would mean that the eyewitnesses got together to line up the testimonies, so they show no inconsistencies, but this would cast doubt in the eyes of many other than the scholars. Jim Wallace ends the post with this. "The Bible gives us a broad picture by including multiple perspectives of the same events. If the Bible were a fabrication, it would have benefitted the compilers to include only a single Gospel or to combine them all into one. Instead, the Bible includes all the witness statements, as they were given, to provide the most accurate cumulative account, just what we would expect to see if the Gospels were describing true eyewitness statements?" (3) So, while scholars are important, needful, and bring up issues that Christians should be aware of and need to address, they also have issues. Here we find the academic bubble seems to be at odds with what is actually seen among eyewitness accounts. What scholars want to see in their theoretical text would not align with what one sees in real life. If the New Testament was written the way many scholars wanted, it would go against what we know to be true of eyewitness accounts. So, here is or dilemma or the square circle of New Testament Academia. Do we stand with the New Testament Academics who seem to be operating in a theoretical framework dethatched from reality or the people who work with testable, repeatable testimonies and go with them and their findings? One day, I would hope that modern scholars would reach out to other research fields to compare what they know, what they have found in their research, but this will probably not happen. What was my takeaway from this video? Trust but verify; I believe that is the point of Testifies video. Like normal Testifies, points were solid, well done, well documented, and should help those who seek the truth. Thank you for another good video, Testify. Also, do you know if any of the atheist KZbinrs watch your channel? If so, do they respond to what you say or just attack? From my experience, I would say they blindly attack, but what do you see. (1) coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-are-there-so-many-gospel-contradictions/ (2) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion (3) coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-are-there-so-many-gospel-contradictions/

[@WildCard-ze3tm]

The problem with Wallace's approach is that he has the same issue that you accuse scholars of having, tunnel vision from his specialization. The Gospels are quite clearly not forensic statements written down by direct eyewitnesses. How could they be? They include events that the writers could not have witnessed and also copy from each other liberally. Matthew and Mark have word for word agreement in many areas, and Luke also reproduces large swaths of Mark. To Wallace's detective mind, this would have to mean that they colluded for some nefarious purpose. But that's not what scholars who study ancient textual criticism would think. It's possible that Matthew and Luke saw Mark's account as very good and thought most of it did not need to be substantially changed (though they did polish certain things like grammar and word choice). Remember, this wasn't the 21st century when books can be reproduced, and distributed widely and easily. Books needed to be painstakingly copied by hand, so Matthew and Luke could have copied the best parts of Mark since there was a real possibility that his work would be lost. In terms of including events that the writers had not witnessed, it's very possible that they interviewed eyewitnesses and included their testimonies. But it's quite clear that they edited these testimonies in order to better fit the emphasis of their work. Are we really prepared to say that Joseph (who Matthew presumably interviewed) forgot about the journey to Bethlehem for the census or the visit of the shepherds? Did Mary (who Luke presumably interviewed) simply forget the visit of the Magi of the flight to Egypt? Did Matthew forget that Jesus washed his feet? Did John forget about the institution of the Lord's Supper? Probably not. It makes much more sense that Matthew and John omitted these events from their telling because they were less relevant to the focus. These are practices consistent with theological biographies that emphasized certain aspects of Jesus, not with forensic eyewitness statements. I do not doubt Wallace's intentions, but I have a problem with his methodology. I think that scholars who are well versed in first century Greek writings have a more useful skill set for study of the Gospels than the skill set of a 21st century American forensic detective.

[@williambillycraig1057]

@@WildCard-ze3tm Thank you, I can see you put much thought into this reply, and I appreciate the tone of it. I do want to point out that in my thread, I stated that "scholars are important, needful, and bring up issues that Christians should be aware of and need to address." So I am not opposed to them; to me, they just seem to be caught un in a loop, not able to see out of it. I believe modern scholarship is making great strides in their field, such as Mike Licona. In his book Why are there differences in the gospels, Licona says that the gospels line up with "the genre of Greco-Roman biography," written in the same genre that "permitted some flexibility in the way in which historical events were narrated." So, all Greco-Roman biography have apparent contradictions in them that one could point to as undermining Greco-Roman history, but this was their writing style much like the gospels. So, with only Licona, one could rightly put to rest Bart Ehrman's claim that the Bible contains a world of contradiction that undermines its credibility. This was the point I was making, a modest claim that contradictions are not issues in any text, ancient or modern; they are watermarks of genuineness. Here Wallace and the writers of Greco-Roman biographies also line up. In the Greco-Roman biographies, one finds literary spotlighting, additional details, the law of biographical relevance. Etc. Warner also sees this in his line of work, but he uses different terms for them. Examples are what the various witnesses pick up on more than others. Women tend to be aware of how someone is dressed, whereas men may notice the stance of the perpetrator. One witness may claim that one man was in the room yelling at another man; another witness may see the same event and not speak to the man yelling at all; instead, they focus on the one with the gu, waving it around. One witness may have picked up most of the words the assailant spoke, while the other may have picked up on how the victim responded. So Wallace's cold case research and Licona's research in Greco-Roman biography each do have overlap, they agree in several areas, but the agreement comes about through different means. I believe this is why Testify says while the critics provide a valuable service, we should not blindly follow only them. In your first statement, you said that "The problem with Wallace'sWallace's approach is that he has the same issue that you accuse scholars of having, tunnel vision from his specialization." I would say this is possible, but Wallace does use scholarly work in his research. When one reads his material, he seems to be very aware of academic research, and he has interviewed Licona before, so I think Wallace is aware of modern scholarship. You also said that "The Gospels are quite clearly not forensic statements written down by direct eyewitnesses." Wallace is also very aware of this and has confirmed this many times. The eyewitness did not write many of the testimonies Wallace had access to in his detective work. They were recorded by detectives who interviewed the eyewitnesses, and in several cases, the detective and witnesses had passed away many years before Wallace's investigations began. You continue down this line of thinking for a while, but I think you and Wallace would agree here. Luke did not claim to be an eyewitness of the accounts, and Mark seems to have recorded what Peter has witnessed. I think most people are aware of this, including Wallace. You also said that "Matthew and Mark have word for word agreement in many areas, and Luke also reproduces large swaths of Mark. To Wallace's detective mind, this would have to mean that they colluded for some nefarious purpose" Wallace is aware of this, and he has had witnesses he investigated where the witness has had "word for word agreement in many areas." This lines up with what detectives find in their investigations, so you and Wallace agree again. What I was pointing to is that you find contradictions as well; one should find each in their investigations. If it is all one or the other, then you have issues with the witness's credibility. You then state, "But that's not what scholars who study ancient textual criticism would think." This is where Bart Ehrman would seem to disagree with you; Ehrman states that the World of contradictions is proof that the gospels cannot be trusted. But this is "popular book Bart"; "scholarly Dr. Erhman" does not make this claim. Again, this is why Testify says not to put all your trust in scholars. For the rest of the paragraph, I and I believe Wallace would agree with you. You then moved to the editing of the gospels. You said that "it's quite clear that they edited these testimonies in order to better fit the emphasis of their work." I agree with you, and I think I can speak for Wallace on this and say that he agrees as well, and for sure, Lacona also agrees, with many others such as Dr. Heiser. Detectives also edit work when they compile the evidence before they present it to the courts. What the editing detectives do is like that of the gospel writers/editors. They do not change what happened, only how they present the truth. They will take the eyewitness testimonies, put them together, and present what happened in a particular case to the court; not all details are wanted or even needed. So I agree with you on this paragraph also, and I am sure Wallace would also. Here is where I do tend to drift away from Licona and others a bit. He seems to go too far at times when dealing with contradictions; he gives up too quickly at times. For example, when pressed by Ehrman, I saw Licona say that the gospel writer got something wrong. I think Licona was wrong, not the gospel writer. I believe the question was on the day of the crucifixion, was it the day of Passover or the day before. Licona said that the gospel writer was wrong, but when one looks into the evidence like a detective or scholar with a broad approach, one finds in the Old Testament that the Passover week is called the Passover day. Dr. James White addressed this when questioned on this subject in a debate. So, the gospel writer could have been wrong or used Old Testament terminology in his writings; one undermines the gospels' credibility, one strengthening it. Seeing that the term "the day of the Passover" covers both the whole week and it coves the specific day, John would seem to be using it the same way; for the day and the week, they are interchangeable. I believe Dr. Erman is aware of this but ignores it, sadly Licona does not put this out as an option either. You ended with this statement, "I do not doubt Wallace's intentions, but I have a problem with his methodology. I think that scholars who are well versed in first century Greek writings have a more useful skill set for study of the Gospels than the skill set of a 21st century American forensic detective." I think this is a solid criticism you bring out; my issue is that they seem to focus on the New Testament only. Like the problem above, most New Testament Scholars too easily give up when pressed on these apparent contradictions. If more New Testament scholars thought more like detectives, they would not limit their research the way they seem to do. As in the example above, the gospel writer could write that Jesus' crucifixion was on Passover day, which is the week of the Passover, but not on the very day; this is how it was used in the Old Testament. This view shows that the Old and New Testaments are consistent within themselves. A good detective would have included the Old Testament in their research on this apparent contradiction. The detective would at least make one aware of this simple and consistent solution and let the people make up their minds with the full weight of all the evidence. Sadly, few modern scholars do this. Thank you again for your reply; it was well thought out and enlightening. By it, I see that I should have expanded my comment that "scholars are important, needful, and bring up issues that Christians should be aware of and need to address." I also should have more plainly stated that my concern in the thread was on apparent contradictions in the gospels that many people claim diminishes it credibly. I did not intend to portray that I do not hold modern New Testament scholarship in high regard; I do. But, I think many of them tend to be too limiting at times, stuck inside their bubble. If one wants to seek truth, they need to use modern scholarship and other sciences as well; this is what Wallace does. While aware of what modern scholarship offers, Wallace goes back to the earliest eyewitness: the biblical authors and early church fathers. I think his work is well done and stands on its own, and should be considered by others, such as New Testament scholars. Thank you again for your reply; it was well written and had a good tone; God bless.

[@TenMinuteTrips]

This over two year old video, just showed up in my feed. It got my attention with the title, “Don’t Blindly Follow…” Let me fill in the blank here. Nobody should blindly follow anything. But if the person who posted this video was intellectually honest, he would have avoided poisoning the well, in the title, before he even gets to his main arguments. I could follow his title with my suggestion; “Don’t Blindly Follow…” anything in the Bible.

[@dulls8475]

Where does the Bible tell one to blindly follow?

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@dulls8475blessed is he who believes yet has not seen. ?!!???

[@dulls8475]

@@isidoreaerys8745 If you want to twist it you are correct. I have followed Christ and not seen Him but I looked at the abundant historical evidence. So not blindly following. Isaiah 1:18 King James Version 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

Appeals to Authority are the most dangerous logical fallacies in my opinion.

[@yoshiyoshikira7326]

Yes It's really dangerous, there are many theologists that are very skeptical with The bible, especially in internet

[@CRoadwarrior]

You are absolutely correct. We cannot blindly follow the fallacious consensus gentium fallacy of the "Biblical Scholarly Consensus." Sometimes, especially with people like Bart "Errorman," scholars don't read carefully and don't think carefully, and make mistakes in their assessments.

[@johngeverett]

The 'scholarly concensus' at one time was that the Hitites were non-historical, legendary, myth. When they dug a few feet deeper, they found an extensive Hittite civilization. Scholarly concensus means 'I let other people do my thinking for me'.

[@Vinnymanvinny1]

How does it mean that? What about times that the Bible was not historically correct? When I was a Christian I used to hear about things such as "oh secular scholars said there was no such thing as the Hittites but we found traces of the Hittites therefore secular scholars are just trying to attack the Bible" However it was never presented was all the times that secular scholars were right iland Christian scholars were wrong

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Uh yeah. Scholarly consensus means not believing in things until you have actual evidence for it. And when that evidence is found. Your change your mind and revise your beliefs to be more correct. You’re acting like that’s a bad thing? Just because you believed in one thing which was correct doesn’t mean your method of believing things based solely on what a book said is effective it can still lead you to believe all manner of falsehoods in contradiction to reality.

[@thiago292]

​​@@Vinnymanvinny1Not saying that you're wrong, but can you provide an example of history or archeology disproving the bible?

[@jochemschaab6739]

They also really like to hammer on the census of Quirinius

[@TestifyApologetics]

Inspiring Philosophy has made a couple of really good vids on the topic; I have thought of making one but I feel like I'd have nothing to add, he already nailed it.

[@jochemschaab6739]

@@TestifyApologetics Yeah I know, but he did not mention a verse in Acts that confirsm his theory. I came across it while reading my bible and basically was blown away by its historical value This was said by a pharisee in a totally unrelated context so either Luke had to be a brilliant and super lucky forgerer or it is historically accurate. Here is the passage: "After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered." Acts 5:37 NIV Judas the Galilean is placed during the census, sp between 7 and 4 bc, but not according to Josephus. Oh and IP kinda forgot to answer the question: "Why did Joseph have to go to a town that someone a thousand years ealrier lived?"

[@Mike00513]

@@TestifyApologetics I think it would be nice if you made your own video about it. Because it could be shorter and less exhaustive as IP’s and easier to understand.

[@georgiapeach3109]

Peace Of The Lord Be With You ✝️❤️

[@chipperhippo]

I’m a bit confused, the video purports to show why scholarship shouldn’t necessarily be trusted, but at best we’re provided 3 instances of a particular scholar being incorrect, and possibly 1 example of another (I think a more charitable reading would be that Martin is referring to the 12 apostles). What we should be given in support of the video’s thesis are examples of scholarly consensus, followed by reasons to doubt this consensus. To simply point to mistakes on the part of scholars credited by some with popularizing scholarly consensus in their work is just a non sequitur in my view.

[@TestifyApologetics]

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. I could mutilply quotes from a diverse number of scholars, even so called conservatives. It would just make for a much longer video.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

This may go against some of the views of this channel, but I actually don’t think the Bible has to be TOTALLY inerrant to be inspired of God.(In the historical sense) Don’t get me wrong. I think the vast amount of apparent historical “contradictions” in the Bible have very plausible harmonizations. Others however, simply don’t. This used to bother me because I’ve grown up in a very conservative evangelical home like Bart and some of these contradictions really did give me a crisis of faith. But, when I “discovered” that the Bible was indeed a human book, and that the theological themes and “centers” of the Bible, in my opinion, are not at stake with these often minor discrepancies, it gave me a new understanding of the Bible and biblical inspiration. The Bible is absolutely inerrant in all that it teaches us. The lessons for us as humans, the gospel of Christ, rooted in the historical reality of his resurrection.

[@rayzas4885]

Sounds like michael heisers take on inerrancy tbh

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

@@rayzas4885 Perhaps. I don’t know too much about Heiser. The only bit of work that I’ve loved by him is demonstrating the existence of binitarian/Trinitarian God in the Old Testament. My point was this: so many people have left Christianity because they are taught and conditioned from birth that if there is a SINGLE contradiction in the Bible, a single iota of mistake by an author, then the WHOLE thing collapses. I’ve surveyed the entire Bible and there is a not a SINGLE place where this is actually claimed to be true by an author.

[@davidstrelec610]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan Mark says there were 4000 people when Jesus fed the multitudes Matthew says there were 5000 The question is: who cares? Does it really matter?

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

@@davidstrelec610 I’m sure there have been some evangelical scholars who have worked on that. If anything, it could be different recollections, showing independence and not conspiratorial collusion. Does effect ANYTHING of theological significance? Not at all.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I think the evidence leads to the Gospels being substantially accurate eyewitness reportage and inerrantists and non-inerrantists can definitely agree on that. Our faith should be in the central truths of the Gospel and not our interpretation of inspiration, even though that is a very important and interesting topic. I'm probably more on the conservative end myself atm.

[@missk1697]

Lysenko and Mengele both had degrees. Just because someone is educated, doesnt mean they are right.

[@joeylonglegs4309]

It’s the exact same with Old Testament scholarship aswell. In all fields, we need to evaluate the evidence and come to our own conclusion, not just blindly follow what we are told is the consensus.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

“Do your own research” Joe Rogan Academy of Antivax conspiracies and pseudohistoriographic Anecdotography Class of 2024

[@thisgeneration2894]

Great work brother.

[@JonClash]

I don’t know why your channel isn’t at 100k subs yet!

[@Bushido1274]

I love this channel, no expert needed.

[@Gamerboy365ify]

Remember that at one point in history, the scholarly consensus was that the Earth was in the center of the solar system.

[@madcow9421]

Because that is what the bible ACTUALLY says. Lol. Proving you believe the bible is false. Can’t believe you use the argument the proves the bible false to support it . Smh

[@Gamerboy365ify]

@@madcow9421 Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is in the center of the solar system?

[@sabhishek9289]

@@madcow9421 Galileo Galilei (who was the father of heliocentric cosmology and was a Christian throughout his life) says: "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

[@oclaytonlopez]

Thanks! Keep up the good work!

[@TestifyApologetics]

thank you!

[@austinapologetics2023]

Thing about Ehrman is that he seems more interested in being popular with laymen than being a credible scholar.

[@thecloudtherapist]

He's figured out where he can make money; with those that are intellectually lazy and get their 'truth' from KZbin. The pouring of potions into people's ears has always been profitable for the one doing the pouring.

[@toomanymarys7355]

No. He wants to lead people away from Christ. He is simply mad at God and doesn't care what lies he tells to trick people.

[@austinlincoln3414]

He’s not mad at god he just gets things wrong

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@austinlincoln3414 Agreed! He doesn’t insult God or Christianity like most Agnostics/Atheists . In fact in a Christmas facebook post he wrote how much he Loved the story of Jesus and what it means. I think he’s just confused, and in this confusion he writes financially successful books which wouldn’t motivate him to seriously rethink his positions. My Longwinded way of saying I don’t think he’s malicious, just confused haha

[@JoshMcSwain]

@@thecloudtherapist He's also said that the differences in the gospels produce no major differences in doctrine. I have thought he might simply be pandering to lazy people.

[@neilpollicino80]

I always read more than one source. I find PROF EHRMAN's approach educating, entertaining and it has lead me to you.

[@Occhiodiargento]

This was very liberating, thank you.

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

I ultimately am not taking issue with your conclusion that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to a jewish audience, as an Orthodox Christian I must say that we often refer to "the fathers" as "our fathers" in the liturgy, and that applies to everyone in the service even though I'm a more recent convert and have no jewish blood as far as I can tell, so I don't think that mentioning Paul's use of "our fathers" as indicating Jewish background is a particularly strong claim.

[@popixel]

I was about ready to start reading one of his books. But you do have to take his work with a grain of salt considering his history. Yes he is a well educated man but he also has a problem with believing the gospel.

[@rayzas4885]

@La Hire Is he really not a historian?

[@ptk8451]

Thank you

[@brian.jrmontoya3227]

I shouldn’t let that sway you away from reading his stuff. Be open minded, it makes it easier to respect his work but criticize some things you may disagree with having a more clear mind.

[@popixel]

@@brian.jrmontoya3227 I suppose you’re right there, I mean, I have even looked into scriptures from places like the Caraun, as well as Latter-day Saints in order to more intelligently speak to those who are practitioners of those religions.

[@micahmcgowan8007]

Really well made video. Keep up the good work!

[@leahcimmmm]

This is prolly among my favorite videos from you. Great work!!

[@wesleybasener9705]

do you have a recommended reading list?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I should probably make a video on this. I would say for natural theology, I recommend Richard Swinburne "Is There a God?" and Stephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis" Regarding biblical issues, I'd recommend: Lydia McGrew Hidden in Plain View, Eye of the Beholder and The Mirror or the Mask Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (although I disagree with him on some issues, notably Johannine authorship) The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Kostenberger and Kruger) Who Chose the Gospels? (CE Hill) Paul Barnett's 3-volume After Jesus series. Craig Blomberg The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend Older (free) books: William Paley A View of the Evidences of Christianity and Horae Paulinae JJ Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences The Analogy of Religion, Joseph Butler B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament John Leland, A View of the Principal Deistical Writers William Adams, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles

[@transsilvanianus]

@@TestifyApologetics Yes, I would like it too, if you make a video about it

[@wesleybasener9705]

@@TestifyApologetics thanks brother!

[@jsto6056]

Dan McClellan is another. ALWAYS refers to the "overwhelming SCHOLARLY consensus." Which also happens to be the atheist consensus which is all that is allowed in places like Oxford. And I'm guessing UC Chapel Hill, and most likely the School of Divinity. It is easy to claim "Data over Dogma" when you refuse to allow for any data that contradicts what you want to believe.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

What data would that be? Your feelings? The Bible says the Bible is true and the Bible is true so that settles it? Look at the trees? Let’s see it.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Which is exactly what Ehrman does. He doesn't want the facts getting in the way of his dogma.

[@ameribeaner]

Identity politics vs. ideas: it’s not who says it but what is being said. Foolishness from a scholar is still foolishness. This is why the only person Christians worship is Jesus of Nazareth and not any saint or scholar.

[@MatthewFearnley]

Whenever I see that picture of Bart Ehrman, it looks like he’s thinking: “well darn, I’m featured in another Testify video, aren’t I..”

[@protochris]

There are far more contradictions from Bart Ehrman than any of the gospels. He often says very few Jews were literate, yet when Pilate posted the inscription above Jesus' cross, the Bible says "many of the Jews passing by were upset when they read it". We also have Zacharias using a clay writing tablet to write down John's the Baptist name. This shows writing material was readily available for short texts. He later claims Peter couldn't read because ACTS describes him a "unlettered", which doesn't really mean illiterate. The biggest irony is that Ehrman believes that ACTS of Apostles is a work of fiction. How can he cite something fictitious when making a historical claim? There are countless other contradictions I frequently find in Ehrman's analysis.

Good ol' Bart Ehrman, the myth, the legend, the living meme.

[@Viral_Christology]

BE is not a “good ol’ Bart” but a shameless liar who has made a career out of his dishonest underhanded bashing of Christianity.

[@Paul-px9bf]

Bart "All the bits in the gospels that contadict my theory are made up" Ehrman I find his lectures a chore tbh. Long on dad jokes and digressions, light on detail.

[@TandemSix]

In "Did Jesus Exist, the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth" Dr. Erhman conveniently stops the quotation of Isaiah 53 before it talks about how that servant will rise from the dead and will see after Him the reward for His labor. He doesn't quote the whole chapter and he says it talks about Israel

[@davidstrelec610]

The servant is blameless who has done no wrong and is led silent to his slaughter! Israel is sinful and disobedient throughout the whole OT and Israel reportedly far exceeded self defense when committing violence regularly The plural us is reference to Isaiah and his people distinct from the servant who is expected to save them and portrayed as rejected and held in low esteem Israel saves... itself? Israel rejects itself?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'll make a video on the topic soon; that's a terrible argument. I wrote a little on the topic a few years ago. isjesusalive.com/6-strong-reasons-why-isaiah-53-describes-jesus-alone/

[@TandemSix]

@@davidstrelec610 I know,Israel to be the servant? Oh please,when did Israel die for the world?

[@davidstrelec610]

@@TandemSix That is another strong inconsistency

[@truthmatters7573]

@@TestifyApologetics looking forward to the video!

[@johnnybrave7443]

Of course you're right, we shouldn't use argument from authority.

[@indianasmith8152]

Another fine video exposing the shallow nature of much "scholarly criticism." Well done!

[@Tyl3r_B]

Really appreciate your vids!

[@SATYADAIVARCHANA]

Wonderful Brother 👍👍👍👍

[@ralphstarling6707]

well said! And, I am one who embraces doubt as part of the journey in faith!

[@SimonDaumMusic]

The good thing about real academia is that its not at all about trusting people, but its simply to let the data and the facts speak for themselves.

[@joehinojosa24]

Ermann is a textual scholar. This is distinct from documentary form criticism. Popular readers though may not see the difference. Identifying a text-type or manuscript family tradition is useful but has nothing to do with the identity of an amanuensis( Secretary) transcribing a gospel or epistle. Nor does it help validate/ invalidate its canonicity or inspiration.

[@toomanymarys7355]

He lies about what the manuscripts say. He claims that liturgical marks setting off the lectionary readings are marks of "dubiousness." No one could possibly find that credible. He lies.

[@joehinojosa24]

@@toomanymarys7355 I only know how to use critical apparatus in UBS NT TEXT or Nestle Aland comparing with patristic quotes and ancient versions. Are "lectionary" readings from a LATER period of transmission? If so, they may support a Byzantine text type. Usually modern textual critics are suspicious of Majority text type variants.

[@billwassner1433]

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13 KJV)

[@katathoombs]

4:00 in anticipation of possible rebuttals: "But, you see, these must be later interpolations. Of _course_ the _real_ Jesus wouldn't have spoken about his death, as he would have been a simple intinerant cynic preacher. Later the Jesus movement came up with the supposed resurrection to... I dunno, copy the mystery religions, the Egyptian myths, what ever it's not important. What is important, is that the _real_ Jesus didn't know he was to die. That is mythical. Because I say so." Yeah, no.

[@colesimons3533]

Everytime I hear “biblical scholarly consensus” it’s literally just Bart Ehrmans opinions lol

[@ThethomasJefferson]

I get all the time that I have a degree in this or a degree in that, so I know what I am talking about. Yet they don’t know what they are talking about.

[@dulls8475]

Wait till you get to the ones who have a degree and have read both the Bible and the Koran even though they are not believers in either faith..

[@John14-6...]

Dr. Bart could have 6 phds and 4 bachelor degrees and an IQ of 180 but he does what every single athiest and skeptic does and that is to study facts that support their paradigm or thesis while ignoring any evidence that refutes it.

[@danbel]

We always have to verify. Good points

[@rocketdogticker]

I was hoping to find a good refutation, alas I am leaving empty-handed

[@finallykadaine8473]

If only you would apply this same kind of critiquing to your own (Christian) scholarship and apply honest questioning...*your boldness here*...would turn out completely different.

[@usapatriot444]

Nicely done! Helpful hint...please talk slower or have Closed Captioning available. Some of your words get garbled. Thanks! I know some who have "deconstructed" their faith in Jesus due to what Ehrman has said. Your work needs more views!

[@davidadams8726]

Thank you. David Adams, Mobile, AL

[@jamesnewton3709]

PHD stands for "piled Higher & Deeper " !

[@Mike00513]

Great video!

[@quagsiremcgee1647]

Gotta love bad faith quoting

[@haachamachama7]

6:27 Jesus explains why 3 verses later, everything Bart Ehrman says is just under the hopes that people won't check the references themselves lol "Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God."

[@brian.jrmontoya3227]

Fascinating. Makes me wonder what man made laws he refers to as pretending to be God’s within that context of scripture. I’ve always had issue with some of the more weird laws from the Old Testament portrayed. Some are great. Some are very weird to say the least.

[@haachamachama7]

@@brian.jrmontoya3227 He wasn't talking about the laws in the Scriptures. It mentions a few laws they made, for example, the rules of hand washing before eating

[@brian.jrmontoya3227]

@@haachamachama7 I’m confused, is the rule of hand washing before eating viewed as a good or bad thing in Jesus’s eyes within this context?

[@paulgundrum9059]

If You want concensus in Faith, then look at the Church Fathers of Orthodoxy. They will not steer You wrong, clinging to the teachings of Jesus and The Apostles!! They cross every century of the Church and continue to this day.

[@luisrosalesEAGLE]

I don’t trust man opinion I trust GOD words Jesus ❤❤

[@VicCrisson]

Thank you. Commenting for algorithm.

[@IndianChristian19]

Hi Testify. Can you show the page numbers when you quote someone like Bart Ehrman?

[@mattylite7]

Thats the thing about academic consensus. You are free and welcome to poke holes in someone's work. if you fail to negate the persons argument, then it remains.

[@saycheese6773]

Would be nice to see Ehrman take a lie detector test to see if he truly believes all the lies he spills

[@weezy894]

That's an interesting idea. Hook both parties up to a lie detector during debates to see who is being intellectually dishonest 😂

[@SunnyFernand7]

Hey Eric can u make a video on New Testament academic scholarship thank you.

[@thisgeneration2894]

You know... the older I get each day the better your videos are on my re re watches.. 👍🏽

[@katathoombs]

I listened the Yale lecture series on the NT a couple of years ago. The completely Roman opening, forgetting everything about the Jewishness of early Christianity, put me off. Listened to it all the same. Liked the OT lectures better, esp. the one on the Torah. Excellent structure!

[@jakeroberts6274]

Great job 👏

[@arthurk188]

This applies to a lot of things including biblical studies.

[@CircusofPython]

Your videos have definitely helped me. I have long saw holes in a lot of what Ehrman says. He’s either not that great of a Biblical scholar or he’s patently dishonest tbh

[@Charles-tv6oi]

He thinks the stone rolled away at the tomb issue is a contradiction. No place does it say that Mary saw the angel roll the stone . For all we know she could have been cutting a corner, fell when the earthquake happened, then went around corner n saw it already rolled away. So? It's possible another saw the whole event from a hilltop.

[@TaxEvasi0n]

When I started looking in to Barts arguments, I was actually dumbfounded and mortified. He's out there spreading misleading arguments and leading many astray. His arguments are unreasonable because he's not even quoting scripture properly.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Excellent job here testify! I don’t have too much of a problem with BE, it’s his fans that treat like the Pope with infallibility that annoy me lol. BE at least seems to be somewhat honest and will acknowledge mistakes on his blog as you showed in this video. And acknowledged in a debate when confronted by Catholic Theologian Dr.Brant Pitre that Jesus *does* make divinic claims in Mark not just John. I also don’t think he’s malicious, he made a Christmas post of how much he at least appreciated the story of Jesus. He’s also pretty funny sometimes lol The problem is as you said, most of his fans won’t see these corrections, then will repeat these inaccurate statements quoting him, and have the audacity & temerity to be malicious and disrespectful whilst doing so, not knowing they’re in the wrong. Let’s hope maybe one day he writes a “famous book” on all his mistakes on new testament scholarship

[@jamesbarringer2737]

I sometimes wonder if Bart Ehrman isn't a double agent. For example, his theories about Mark, are so obviously wrong and easy to refute. He makes really weird, absurd suggestions that are easy to refute if you simply know the New Testament pretty well, but Ehrman also testifies to the validity of many things that are very helpful to Christian apologists to have validated by a well-known atheist Biblical scholar. i.e. 1) that although there are many errors in the copies of the Gospels we have, none of those errors upturn orthodox (with a little "o") Christian understanding of these works, or the theology that flows from them - you can debate the orthodoxy, but it doesn't flat-out overturn it 2) that the errors are overwhelmingly of the minor typographical type - the books appear reliably maintained through the millenia, well enough that we've a good idea of what the authors were trying to communicate 3) That Jesus was clearly an actual person in history 4) He was crucified by the Romans, died and buried and 5) on the 3rd day his empty tomb was found. With just those 5 points, Christians can build a reasonable case for Christianity's truth. Ehrman helps contemporary Christianity. He doesn't hurt it (not does he profess to desire to hurt Christianity - he just doesn't believe it). Ehrman did study with some of the great modern Bible scholars, such as Bruce Metzger - who was himself a believer. Metzger knew all of the facts that Ehman knows, yet those facts never led Metzger - or 90% of the others who learn them - to questioning his faith - rather it seemed to strengthen it. It seems the people who fall away from Christianity in their religious studies started out with absurd assumptions - i.e. there should be no typos in handwritten documents if they are true scripture. Even Muslim Koranic scholars deal with the manuscript error issue. This is obviously always going to be the case, but we know, from vast amounts of evidence - such as the vast archives of the Dead Sea Scrolls - that the scribal traditions have proven to be remarkably good at what they were trying to do, vis-a-vis preserving religious documents that the scribes considered of life-saving value. The Bible today is a book more studied by more professionals and laymen than any other book in history, notwithstanding other religious scriptures. Quite arguably, the New Testament, which is much shorter and an easier read than the Old, is far more intensely read, since it is the core book of the largest single religious group in the world. There's nothing a 21st century Biblical scholar is going to discover from reading the New Testament that hasn't been known for centuries - so how do you address this so as to have a successful academic career? I think Ehrman's strategy is to toss out bizarre claims that even he understands are weak, but that atheists want to hear. The people who buy his bestselling books (bestsellers are a rare thing for a biblical scholar, whether atheist or believer) either want to believe what he is writing, or will buy his books to understand a disbeliever's point of view - and potentially to refute the arguments. Either way, Ehrman sells a ton of books. It's really, really hard selling books that explain orthodox Christian teachings, but it's those orthodox teachings that you end up with if you read the Bible sticking to honest and most apparent interpretation - so taking Ehman's tact makes sense in the context of Modern Academia. Modern Academia in soft studies like literature and history does not reward truth, it rewards developing a following. What Ehrman does makes complete sense if your goal is a successful career as an academic and scholarly writer.

[@kensmith8152]

I feel that many of those in academia, in order to remain relevant, to sell books and write papers for journals etc, need to constantly be controversial and outside the mainstream. The started out as believers, got their doctorates in theology for whatever reason lost their faith along the way. So therefore come up with things that sound plausible to sell books. Meanwhile they don’t care how they wreck the faiths of new and sincere believers

[@waxworse]

(3:09) This is a huge Bart Errman red flag. Bart is a Bible scholar so he knows what he's doing by not using whole chapter context. He is going out of his way to do this. If he's doing this outside the classroom then he's doing it inside the classroom. Very deceptive.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

BE is so incredibly sloppy in the easy stuff that it makes me even more suspect of his handling of the more difficult things. And Peer Review doesn't mean endorsement of content. It is really a very very low bar.

[@crucesignata]

Scott Hahn and John Bergsma are probably two of the greatest scripture scholars alive today.

[@realjosephanthony]

Fun fact: Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the Quran, and the name Muhammad is a title. It's quite likely this man never lived. Just to show you how off this is, Noah is mentioned 43 times. Jesus (Isa) is mentioned 78 times.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

I just want to mention as much as I disagree with most of your videos, I totally agree with you here regarding biblical scholars or anyone flaunting their supposed credentials thinking this will make them infallible. You are always very fair and polite in your critique and you were no less with Bart. He definitely has an agenda and if he has an opportunity to say something which most won't know how to defend, he will. Of course, I say the same thing about Christianity all the time. The whole nt is based on distortions that are obviously manipulated to further a Christological agenda. But that's for another time. One thing I have to mention (since it's hard for me not to disagree with something:) is your reference to Psalm 22. I was not clear what you were pointing out regarding what Bart said and what he said that was wrong but the few things you did say about this Psalm are also wrong. You reference a mishna in taanit and being that 99.9% of your audience has no idea what that is, they believe you. However, there is no such mishna. Also, you claim Psalm 22 "has definitely been fulfilled" is absurd. The verse says ALL the nations will turn to God. Not sure what planet you live on but most people are atheists or worship idols and that number is rising. There's also nothing in this psalm that would point to jesus. It's David describing his travails like he always does but I'm digressing again.

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

That's complete bullshit. Everyone knows God, even if they're not Christians. Specifically they've heard of Jesus before. And most people aren't atheists. 85% of the world is religious, 2.4 billion of them are Christians (supposedly) and another 1.9 are Muslims. So what's your point? Also, the NT is not based on "distortions" lmfao give me a break. Btw the Shroud of Turin was proven real so hold the L?

[@dulls8475]

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 I am a complete believer in Christ but I put no trust in the Shroud of Turin nor believe it to be real.

[@doughammond8932]

Yes this is a good rational argument for why you can't automatically believe the (secular) scholarly consensus especially when it comes to spiritual matters. But the truth of it that they can never recognize is that their minds have been blinded because of unbelief (2 Cor 4:4). They are enemies in mind by wicked works (Col 1:21). They walk according to the spirit of error and hear the world, not the Word of God (1 John 4:4-6). It's spiritual. They CAN'T get it right and don't want to until and unless they repent to God and believe the Gospel. They're in darkness; we're light in the Lord. Not to our credit but to the glory of God who saved us! That's just the way it is. May God open the eyes of those who oppose themselves.

[@onlineapologetics9729]

My favorite is Dr. Ehrman's "Jesus was crucified on Thursday in John" because it says He was crucified on the day of preparation: “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”” ‭‭John‬ ‭19:14‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Then you just read about 2/3 of the way down the page... “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” ‭‭John‬ ‭19:31‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Clearly they weren't on the cross for an entire day and night... sooo... obviously "the day of preparation" meant Friday. Then we learn that "the day of preparation" was a common euphemism for Friday, just like "the Lord's day," is used for Sunday, and his whole case falls apart. As is the case with 90% of his arguments, it takes like 1 min of reading to see that he is in error. He just can not bring himself to be objective with the biblical data.

[@francescodevincenziis7029]

Based Tim McGrew