Don't Blindly Follow 'Biblical Scholarly Consensus'

On this channel, I’ve made a lot of videos defending the historical reliability of the gospels. And one of the most common objections I hear is that my views aren't in line with modern biblical scholarship. And I admit it. If you’re a Christian and you’re looking for evidence for your faith, you and I are guaranteed to lose the credential war. But that doesn't mean we should blindly trust the so-called consensus modern biblical scholarship, especially when the scholars have said some obviously outlandish and wrong things.

Related blog posts:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Outro music:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

[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 YouTube. Can we do that? Cool.

[noahboughdy]

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.

[__.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.

[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.

[kingarthr]

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.

[malvokaquila]

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.

[douglasmcnay]

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.

[thewolfes]

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!

[austinapologetics]

Jesus predicts his death three times

Ehrman: he is confused and didn't expect this

[Mike]

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

[Mel.]

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!

[passthebaton]

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!

[DavidStirneman]

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

[petery]

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"

[carloswater]

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

[matthirn]

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.

[SupremeSkeptic]

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

[colepriceguitar]

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.

[DanielApologetics]

Brilliant video! Added to favorite playlist.

[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.