Can we trust oral tradition in the Gospels? Bart Ehrman vs Peter J Williams

Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams debate whether the stories about Jesus changed significantly before the Gospels were written down.

This is an extract of agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman and Peter J Williams debating the reliability of the Gospels.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.

The Big Conversation Season 2:

The Big Conversation Season 1:

The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust

[moesypittounikos]

When Bart says 35 years is an unreliable time for historical accuracy I always think of old Holocaust survivors being interviewed. Surely no one will say that their memory is faulty?

[evidentoneteen]

Erhman's conflating oral "tradition", with oral "sources". Luke's eyewitness oral sources would be unaffected by oral tradition... because they were eyewitness.

[Motivationeer]

[The supposed Judas Contradiction About Hanging]

I was taught many years ago, and have since explored it myself, that "hanging on a tree" also referred to being impaled on that tree.



Take Galatians 3:13 for example (which refers back to Deuteronomy 21:23) "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"



Jesus Christ was hung on a tree. That did not involve rope. It was impaling. He was impaled on a tree using iron nails.


It makes sense to me that Judas threw himself onto a tree protruding from the ground, like a stump with a jagged point, and impaled himself. This means he hung himself on a tree. To do this would seem to require a fleshy area of the body --- his stomach. This would result in his intestines spilling out.

[alexkairis]

I either have amazing studio headphones, or Y'all should put a high-pass filter over 60hz. I keep thinking that when either of the speakers puts their hands on the table, someone is stomping on my floor. I would even settle for a low shelf. Love the content though. I've been watching a lot of it.

[ashleyladner]

When preachers try to prove they haven't wasted their entire life

[moesypittounikos]

I love Bart but I feel he used too many 'get out of jail free' cards'. What I mean is that he uses pithy aphorismic insights that he reckons offer a knockout punch, when, on closer look, they don't. So Bart is convinced the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts by old men who knew Jesus, but instead, floating oral traditions. But oral traditions stretch back hundreds of years. And you need a big culture, with plenty of grandkids sitting on grandparents knee for the oral tradition to get passed down. Another way of passing down an oral tradition is the singing bard. The Iliad was past down over generations by professional bards. So was early Buddhism. And here is Bart's clever insight, each Bard sang the Iliad slightly different.

But 50 years is really not long enough for oral traditions to be floating around.

The trouble is with articulate guys like Bart Ehrman is their prestigious position and their imagine time portal which they think they know better than people living 2000 years ago.

It's so obvious that very old men told the Gospel writers their eye witness stories.

Sorry for rambling.

[wesleymarsh]

Since I've watched several of Bart's videos and read one of his books, I feel he made some very good points. I've heard that the recording of the Bible can be compared to a court room, nobody remembers events the same. This has been proven time and time again to be true.


Fundamentalist view the Bible as inerrant and consistent through out. If every word is true, how can the various and differing reports of the empty tomb all be correct? How many angels were there? Were they angels? Was there anybody there at all? Did Mary go report the empty tomb to the apostles or did she run away? And I can give other examples. My point is, if the Bible is consistent throughout, how can there be any differences in the stories? Shouldn't they all mirror each other?


If the telling of the stories don"t reflect each other perfectly (of course written in different voices but containing the same facts) then the text isn't consistent nor is it inerrant.


Final question (I heard this once and believe to be very telling): Is your faith in the Bible or in God? If it's in the Bible then it must be perfect in every way. To question it brings everything into question. To have faith in God, it all becomes irrelevant since God is God and men are imperfect narrators.

[JasonLovesJesus]

Bart Erhman doesn't have biblical understanding.

*In regards to the death of Judas*

Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5
In desperation Judas *threw down the pieces of silver in the temple* where only the priest were allowed to go, then he went out and committed suicide. Comparing this with Acts 1:18, we understand that he hung himself on a tree, and that the rope or branch broke, causing his body to be hurled over a precipice, resulting in disembowelment.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Acts 1:18, 19
There is no contradiction between the manner in which Judas died as described here and the manner in which he died as described in Matthew 27:3-10. After giving the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, Matthew says that he went out and hanged himself. The money was then used to buy a burial ground by the chief priest.

[JamesRichardWiley]

I read parts of the Bible and decided it was too confusing to be useful.
I prefer science, reason, and direct experience as my teacher.

[mediamactv]

Why did the Apostles need to remember everything? Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that the Holy Spirit would help them remember everything He said (in John 14). And if we believe Paul, the Apostles didn't write scripture. God did thru the Holy Spirit. Do we believe Jesus and Paul? These skeptics have us arguing over the reliability of oral traditions. That shouldn't matter if we truly have faith in Jesus.

[Motivationeer]

[Oral Tradition? Listen to timestamp 1:20:14 to 1:20:27]
Why the hang-up about oral tradition. History was already being written during the time of Jesus. People were already capturing events in writing, on papyrus and leather scrolls. Even though the synoptic gospels (Mat, Mar, Luk) were written 40 years after Jesus died, we know the written sources they referenced were not (often referred to as Q).



We know the gospel of John wasn't written four decades later. It was written within the lifetime of John, who walked with Jesus. That means oral tradition was not the ONLY way to capture a story.



Go to timestamp 1:20:14 - 1:20:27 and you'll see Bart actually state the following:

"and you'll see that Luke tells you he is basing these things he has heard and read."



You'll notice a little light goes on inside of Bart as well. He recognizes in that moment that he just said, "Luke used written accounts that were captured much earlier."


Having said all of this, I do not believe that the Bible is 100% error free but the amount of "errors" are minute. I do believe, however, it is 100% perfect in God's plan to reconcile the world to Himself and wonderfully shows us how "the word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."

[gjeacocke]

Bart is asking us to trust his oral tradition that he has it right.

Is he this blind to truth?

[mediamactv]

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

[vinbelmonte]

The very end is the best. Haha. Also Bart’s reconciling problem with Judas is terrible, very soft point that can be easily disputed. Basically Bart is saying that Judas body could not have been seen hanging in a tree by one person than on the ground by another. Bart should be aware of how his biases are effecting rational thought

[bnpixie]

Did the discussion manage to get off the ground?

[dwayneab]

Yes we can trust oral traditions because not everyone is going to be wrong
And God would make sure his word was passed forth
He is God after all
Anything is possible.

[nickb]

The all powerful god that created the universe and came to earth in the form of Jesus could not be bothered to write important stuff down for humanity to learn from without endless interpretations - still going on 2, 000 years later? Really? It would be more miraculous that Jesus was literate and captured his wisdom in many ancient languages and ensured originals of his words were kept for future generations. A little rotating angle hallmark on note paper from heaven's department of human affairs and marketing might have been useful as well to ensure authenticity!

[tomcorcoran]

Bart ehrman seems overly determined instead of open

[jarrod]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "According to Luke" added around 3 or 400 ad? Isn't it an _anonymous_ account?

[onestepaway]

Yes, oral communication can be trusted. People live this out everyday. So it is both logical and coherent to say yes.