How do you respond to Bart Ehrman? // Ask NT Wright Anything

NT Wright responds to Bart Ehrman's critique of the reliability of the Gospels and shares some of his experience interacting with the sceptical Bible scholar.

***

Ask NT Wright Anything is the regular podcast that connects you to NT (Tom) Wright’s thought and theology by allowing you to ask the questions.

Presented by Justin Brierley. Brought to you in partnership with Premier, SPCK & NTWrightOnline

[AlanCossey]

To quote from Misquoting Jesus, page 252, by Bart Ehrman, "Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times… If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that is true.”

[montaguewest]

Bart Ehrman's strongest points haven't convinced me. Ehrman himself says that although there are many variations in the New Testament manuscripts, NONE of them compromises Christian doctrine.

[philochristos]

". . .we can jolly well go back. . ." I love the way English people talk.

[emrys]

And Evangelical pastors want me to see this guy as an enemy.

[christiang]

I would love to see Bart and Tom on the show for a discussion (not necessarily a debate though)

[stutteringdisciple]

I love his accent. He sounds like the history teacher I didn’t have

[mackdmara]

Those two would make for an interesting show. You should definitely do that.

[Ninevehh]

I love how there are so many "professional" Bible scholars in the comments section.

[jimmieoakland]

Your perspectives and experiences always color your opinion on the evidence. I am an attorney. In the law, it is axiomatic that no witness sees the same accident. This is not a prejudice; it is grounded on a lot of experience. Therefore, small differences in the Gospels are not something that would concern me a lot. In fact, if they were in perfect accordance with each other, it would raise suspicions that the authors conspired with one another for some reason.

[optimal]

I find Bart Ehrman to have rather simplified arguments for the non existence of god. How do we know anything happened in history without documents and word of mouth? Does Bart question all history, or just the parts related to god and Christ? As a matter a fact the Bible is the most well documented manuscript ever made. And historical events like the crucification of Jesus are very well documented, witnessed by countless people who give very similar accounts of what transpired.

[MrRea]

Look at the person Jesus Christ first and foremost. If we don’t have that personal connection to Him we have nothing.
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[fernandoformeloza]

Would like to see NT Wright debate Bart Erhman. That would be epic

[polemeros]

Even if we had, say, the very original Gospel of Mark, in his own handwriting, all we'd know is what Mark wrote. Wouldn't tell us if it's factual. And it could still be objected that he was biased or incomplete, etc. and that this was the original lie.

This kind of argument, that we don't have the original, is about infinite regress.

[mrnarason]

I mean, having more copies doesn't make it more likely to be original. Compared to the greek classics, scribes have much more reason to make changes because of theological reasons.

[davidcope]

I think ehrman when you read him isnt scary at all, and hes quite intelligent. He stop believing because he thought God was implausible, so of course hes going to explain the resurrection with a naturalistic lense, if you dont believe in God theres no other way to see it

[Metroid-rgpn]

I hate when apologists try to say that we have way more manuscripts than other ancient documents. That doesn't matter at all. We don't build religions aren't Plato or Homer. We don't claim Plato or Homer is the infallible word of God. I'm fine saying that the Bible is mostly reliable, but we can't say that it's 100% perfect.

[NateChung]

Thanks for all the good content. Would love to hear a debate between the two of them one day!

[stephenmerritt]

The scientism described by CS Lewis back in the 40's and 50's has taken on a life of its own today. The literary market for anti-Christian narratives is incredibly broad. But, the new arguments are nothing more than the old arguments.

[JRobbySh]

Ehrman is a disappointed lover. Unclothed, the girl of his dreams is not as he imagined her, So her human flaws bother him inordinately.

[tonyd]

I have heard Dr Ehrman say that the Bible is THE most well-documented book from ancient times based on original materials (paraphrased, as well as I can recall.) Seems to me that Wright and Ehrman agree on this point.