Have you ever heard people say “the Bible is full of contradictions!” If you haven’t then you probably haven’t talked about your faith very much. One of the best examples of a contradiction contained in the Bible are the very different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Yesterday (Easter Sunday), we examined the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the Apostle Mark. I would quickly admit that the other accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew, Luke and John) offer very different accounts of these events. So how do I resolve the varied accounts between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Do I simply mutter the tried and true “God said it I believe it that settles it?” No way!
Before we throw the doors wide open in examining the issues involved let’s pause to frame the issue with… Colbert.
BTW. The gentleman Steven is interviewing is Dr. Bart Ehrman (the “James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of New Testament”), from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bart Ehrman | ||||
|
||||
I’ll have to watch that when I get home, but the first thing I always think of is that the different resurrection accounts aren’t contradictions.
A contradiction would have been if Matthew said Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, Mark said he was crucified but never rose, Luke said he died naturally and rose, and John said he was neither crucified nor risen from the dead.
Instead, you have all four saying Jesus was crucified and that he rose from the dead.
Let’s put it this way: if the Gospel authors were into lawsuits, whoever wrote first could have sued the others for plagiarism… and he would have won.
Pretty Good, Dad!
“I’ll tell you what. Why don’t we both die, and let God settle it.”
Nice.
I’m curious what other contradictions he cites, because the ones he gave as examples in the interview didn’t seem very compelling to me. In fact, if anything, they seem to lend credibility to the various accounts. Colbert is ridiculous, as always.
Although my family has only attended Grace Fellowship for two Sundays, I felt compelled to respond to this blog because the teachings of Dr. Bart Ehrman drove me to examine my faith. Over the last couple of years I have listened to the Grace podcasts while attending a nearby church. I have been drawn to the Grace Fellowship because it has not only discussed difficult issues such as the inerrancy of scripture and its criticism but has sought them out. I put my trust in Christ in August of 2005 and have ever since whole-heartedly believed in the inerrancy of scripture. But I continue to wrestle with the uncertainty as to why I believe that among other things I now profess to be true.
About two years ago I checked out “The history of the Bible: The making of the New Testament canon [sound recording] / Bart D. Ehrman” from the Forsyth County Public Library. At the time, I didn’t know anything about Bart Ehrman and his views. Needless to say it was difficult and challenging to listen to someone slander the Bible as much as he does. He really takes issue with the authorship of the original manuscripts. He claims many of the Epistles written by Paul are forgeries and were actually written years after the first century. He undermines their authenticity by pointing out what he claims impossible sequences of events. He also rejects the idea of that the Gospels were written by the Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. He says given their educational backgrounds it would not be possible for them to write in such advanced Greek. He claims the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years after they were originally written, which would indicate the resurrection wasn’t originally part of Mark’s Gospel. He also claims parts of the Gospels are plagiarized from other Gospels. He does this because he claims there is no way the two accounts could be so close in their choice and sequence of words. The list goes on and on. From listening to him I could tell he is very bitter because he feels betrayed and looks for ammunition against the Bible.
What makes this difficult for me is Dr. Ehrman isn’t just some fictional writer trying to sell books like Dan Brown but rather he seems to have started off as born-again believer. He claims he gave his life to Christ when he was 15. He started off with fervor for God that very few believers ever have. He went to Moody Bible Institute, then to Wheaton College, and Princeton Theological Seminary. It wasn’t until after he left these institutions and started studying the original manuscripts he lost his faith and now claims to be agnostic. That is what concerns me the most – not his criticism of the Bible, which are all explainable after some research, but the fact he started off passionate for God to ultimately become utterly lost.
I am greatly encouraged though by Grace Fellowship’s commitment to discussing these topics instead of ignoring them. These topics are sometimes unsettling and don’t have comfortable, easy answers but I am convinced if we believe God and Bible are true then we should have no problem with holding them up to light of skepticism and wrestling with that discomfort. I commend Grace Fellowship for doing that and thank them for strengthening my faith.
Grant, thanks for your kind words and hearty affirmation. I am very grateful to be part of this Fellowship that has never ran from or simply dismissed a difficult subject(s) such as the reliability of the Bible for life and doctrine.
Embedded in your kind words are some significant issues (how could Dr. Ehrman turn his back on Jesus, the authorship of Paul, the authorship of the Gospels, etc.) that have the potential to leave a young or even a semi-mature christian reeling.
Would you like for us to address these items under the broader subject of the resurrection of Jesus?
Grant, your comment gladdens my heart. As the famous atheist, Bertrand Russell, said, “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.” I disagree with Russell’s conclusions, but he raises the very important point that truth is all that matters.
Dr. William Lane Craig is a good resource for assessing Dr. Ehrman’s contributions. He and Dr. Ehrman went to Wheaton College together and went very different ways thereafter — Dr. Ehrman’s commitment to inerrancy waned while he was at Princeton, while Dr. Craig became one of the foremost defenders of Christianity’s truth claims.
I’ll see if I can dig out the podcast where he said this (it was one of these), but Dr. Craig points out that Dr. Ehrman concedes that the Bible we have is essentially the Bible as authored by the original writers. This doesn’t get much print, and don’t place too much stock in my saying so until I can document a source, but Dr. Ehrman’s criticisms have more bark than bite when you get right down to it.
Some other resources you might find interesting:
A couple points. First a small rant not directed at you Grant. I don’t understand why the claim of being a “born again” before rejecting the faith holds so much sway. I was an atheist before I became a Christian; does that make Christianity true? Red Herring, but of course that is always brought up in interviews &c.
Second, it really underscores the fact that being a Christian is not an intellectual pursuit. The nature of Christianity is rooted in history and truth about the universe we live in; but any one individual who excels at these pursuits will find any way to reject it in order to chase their idols. This is not historically true, the greatest minds in history were, for the most part, Christians. Euler being my favorite.
Third, James White recently did a debate with Ehrman which you can buy. And, has talked has about his claims a-lot.
“God does not enjoy puns.”
Dan – to your question, in anyway these items can be addressed would be fine with me. I would certainly like to gain a deeper understanding on all aspects and if it would be better in a broader context I yield to your judgment.
Hugh – thanks for all the information. I am happy to see that Ehrman claims are not going unchallenged. It greatly bothers me to see views like his, which also take a great degree of faith to accept, to be presented as fact. I am going to digest the rest of these resources as best I can and hopefully I can follow-up with you on Sunday.
O’Ryan – I can’t speak for others but the significance to me of a supposed “born again” Christian later rejecting the faith opposed to a non-Christian is bundle up in a couple of different things. Although this may not be true I thought a person being truly “born again” could not go on continually and habitually rejecting/denying Jesus. The Ehrman’s of the world would seem to disprove that. Another aspect that I find troubling about a Christian losing their faith is their initial pursuit of Jesus started off with good intentions. At least that is what I am inclined to think. Therefore I am more prone to listen to them oppose to someone who has never claimed to be a Christian.
I entirely agree with you that it is not an intellectual pursuit. I think that is why some of the greatest minds like Einstein could never accept the idea of a personal God that Christian faith presupposes.
I’d like to make one small comment that doesn’t really help the big issues at hand, but I feel it’s important that it doesn’t just slide by.
The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark do appear to have been added to the text years after they were originally written, but that in no way indicates the resurrection wasn’t originally part of Mark’s gospel. The resurrection is documented in Mark 16:1-8. The last 12 verses (16:9-20) don’t explicitly document the resurrection, and we have every scholarly reason (in my opinion) to reject them as part of the original.
Grant,
In response to your post about reading Ehrman, I would direct you to a debate I attended this year between Dr. James White and Dr. Bart Ehrman. It was about the textual critical issues you have been wrestling with, and Dr. White is keen on these issues, having been a critical consultant for the NAS Bible and the Lochman Foundation. The debate was very informative, but I would advise anyone before listening to it to do some kind of primer on textual criticism so that you can follow the debate more precisely.
Ehrman raises the old “more variants than words in the New Testament” argument, but Dr. White points out that 90%+ of those variants are very minor, like spelling errors or copyist errors. The bottom line is that none of the variants, not one of them, make a difference in Christian Theology as a whole.
If you want to check out the debate, you can find it over at http://www.aomin.org
Soli Deo Gloria,
Allan Hampton
Okay, I just watched the video, and wow—I’m really impressed with Colbert’s arguments here. He’s able to raise objections through humor (that he probably doesn’t even believe himself) that are stronger than Ehrman’s serious claims!
Regarding someone walking away from the faith, I believe the standard answer is “then they weren’t ever “truly ‘born again'”.
Makes me think of Matthew 10:24-30 but at least Ehrman is being honest enough not to fake it.
It also seems to have to do with people really coming to grips with suffering, the idea of Hell, and Jesus being the only way. Whether their church didn’t address the issue or they’ve been in a state of denial. Life has a funny way of making sure we all get a chance to put our money where our mouth is regarding these topics.
Ehrman eludes to this in an earlier NPR interview:
Full Interview
Thanks to everyone who read my entry. All the input has been very encouraging and helpful to me. I would like to emphasize that I genuinely appreciate the honesty that you showed me by correcting/clarifying things I said that needed clarifying such as when Ehram’s faith waned and the implications of the last 12 verses of Mark not being included his Gospel. Please continue to correct me because I would rather face the discomfort of being corrected than to continue believing something that is incorrect. Hugh, I am still working my way through J.P. Moreland’s paper, The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy and have to be honest and say it is intellectually challenging for me to grasp and I have to take breaks.
I had breakfast with a friend this morning and we just happen to be discussing 2 Timothy 3:16 and he raised an interesting question. Why didn’t God just directly write the Bible and end all this debate? In all seriousness, he could have made the Bible have some supernatural glow to make it distinct and further substantiate that it is a direct revelation from God. My friend supposed the answer was because anytime God has directly shown himself through the supernatural it has never yielded the kind of faith and love he ultimately desires. This idea can be seen when Israelites in the OT continually pursue idols even when God has visibly rescued them from Egypt and dwells right among. In those days, no one could deny that God existed. I first read about this principle in Philip Yancey’s book “Disappointment with God”. It seems very compelling to me. I was just wondering what you guys thought about why God chose the means that he did to produce the Bible. Thanks
I was thinking about your question and realized I put the wrong scripture in previous post … I meant Matthew 13:24-30.
Check out Matthew 13:10-16 too. I’ve often wondered this same thing before. http://www.guiroo.com/blog/2005/10/06/open-to-interpretation/
Regarding the Israelites, I don’t think “God just wants our faith” is the answer or else why did we start off in the garden in the presence of God and why is it still the ultimate goal? I think it speaks more to the level of rebellion in the human heart.
Judas had every bit of irrefutable, first-hand, evidence as the other disciples did. What was the difference there?
Careful, this line of questioning has lead me to see the truth in the doctrines of Grace — especially limited atonement. 🙂
All good stuff – additional point – in the case of Judas or take Saul for instance…initially one may appear to be a believer in conduct but internally it is self worship decorated with external Christian “stuff” motivated by self worship…over time the self worship no longers considers the Christian virtues to be valuable and the person “rejects” the Gospel – when in reality was not truly embraced. i.e. parable of the seed/soil/rocks/thorns (in my opinion) could be nicknamed the “parable of the false confession”
-OR- on the flip side, one may radically step away from the faith through the influence of the flesh, world, or Satan – only to return to faith through the power of the Holy Spirit – for instance David and his fall into adultery and murder…only to later humbly repent (Psalm 51) and serve God with passion.
I apologize if am over-simplifying the issues/questions – Scripture is very clear that once a person is spiritually born again – while they may still wrestle with sin for a remainder of their lifetime, their faith is real, will not die, and their salvation is secure.
Are there any outstanding issues to this subject we need to consider? It seems we have loaded sufficient information into this string. If any other particulars come to mind please bring them forward and we will consider them.
Just chiming in about Mark 16:9-20 – It is easy to casually reject these 12 verses if one is only exposed to the somewhat unbalanced and, in many cases, seriously distorted statements in various commentaries and — sad to say — some Bible footnotes.
I have conducted a special study on the subject. An online summary of it is accessible at
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
and the full research paper is available on request.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.