Does Ehrman accurately represent the gospel accounts of the crucifixion (acc. to Mark and Luke)?

During the debate Ehrman describes the crucifixion accounts of Mark vs. Luke. His main point is helpful, namely, that we have to be careful not to manufacture a 'unigospel' portrait of the crucifixion.
To make his case he contrasts Mark's account with Luke's. But does his own description faithfully represent the original narratives of Mark and Luke? You decide!
Dr. Ehrman has written extensively on the scenes he describes here in the debate and it should always be remembered that live debates entail shooting from the hip in the response portion of the debate so we should not conclude that his description of the crucifixion is his 'official,' or published understanding of the text.

iPUB promotes meaningful conversation about the Bible with the non-believing

Twitter: @wortmanbill
Host of The Divide Podcast

[iPUB_org]

FYI on my background: I'm a classicist, have read Greek for a few decades, teach in university, and currently I'm working on a doctoral dissertation in biblical studies on narrative in John's gospel.

[Feniantimmy]

So Jesus sacrifices himself to himself? I'm lost here; for what did he do this? And why do the accounts of this act differ from storyteller to storyteller? Why are they not the same? I think I'm going with the scholar here and not the pastor.

[reubenmortotsi]

This just goes to show that the writers are putting words in the mouth of Jesus. If he had said those words the reports would have been the same. Why are the quotations not the same?

[gbfxtrader]

I like that you have left it up to the listeners to draw their own conclusion. To God be the glory in the name of Jesus.

[JonathanRedden-whun]

It is thought that Peter was the main source for Mark’s gospel. Peter denied Jesus and fled the scene. It is therefore to be expected that Mark’s account does not include details and sayings up to and including the cross.
Jesus final cry in Mark is the beginning of psalm 22 and reminds us of the whole psalm which vividly depicts crucifixion and ends with a theme of reassurance. Thank you for your comments on this psalm which includes much more detail than I do here.

[noktrum]

17:55 - the answer to your question is "depends if you are a theist or scientist" or alternatively "don't know" for short. This is because all Gospels are different in describing the events, in fact, they differ in major aspects, such as discussed by Mr Ehrman (in one Jesus says nothing during the last events, other however has him very vocal about stuff - both can't be real). Therefore, we cannot possibly know what Jesus actually said and what was added 100 years after the events. The best way to look at it, from a historian point of view, is the way Mr Ehrman is proposing. The best way to see it from a religious person perspective is accepting that God has its ways and its all perfectly logical, but not possible to be grasped by our minds. In my humble opinion, all debates between theists and atheists are a total waste of time.

[nextworld]

Good try, Pub. Fair presentation. In 20 years, you might be ready to criticize Ehrman.

[ikbent]

I am an atheist, but, although I do not believe in it, I agree your explanation of the text makes perfect sense.

[conradbulos]

I get the impression that the last hours of Jesus is a dramatized remake to fit old testament sayings in the psalms, and other books of the Old Testament, that Jesus is the new actor in the drama, the modernized version of Old Testament heroes and accounts to satisfy modern day views and keep connected to the Old Testament religious culture and thinking.

[KEichman]

Fellow Christians, I for one, welcome the athiestic types. They are a significant part of Biblical and Christian prophecy fullfillment.

Most sound Christian Apologestic literature was written by former athiests, who converted to Christianity, while they were building a case against it.

I am what they would call a freak of nature ... since I am a Christian ... EVEN THOUGH I'm a documented 169 IQ (God gifted, not accomplished, earned, or rewarded) and.College Graduate School Educated.

As far as my personal experiences go, proclaimed Athiests are not nearly as numerous as they think, not generally open-minded enough to contribute to ANY scientific advancement, since nothing good exists if they cant see it or touch it or experience it first hand. They seem overall not very happy unless theyre feeding Christians to Lions, which NEVER has been a good outcome for them.
But they still are children of God, and are due, and will get every benefit of the doubt, and every opportunity to find, God and his Glory.
Honestly, although a thoroughly inquisitive and relatively capable approach to my belief system, and the evidences and truths available, led me to believe and commit to Christianity ... over any and all alternative existence, and purpose ... I as human have ocassional doubt... or need to reconfirm my conclusions, and the "GOOD NEWS".
Discourse with athiests always srengthens my faith. They dont do more harm than good in the "long run", even when they're parenting, or holding office or in a teaching capacity...and they still warrant all the prayers we can bestowe upon them and this world.

[alexanderwestphal]

dude the only thing he says during the day of the passion, in mark, is "Su leges" and "Eloi Eloi! La ma sabachtani!

the first one you showed was the jewish leaders. su leges is with pilate. the third place you wrote silent but then said Yes, he was silent. lolol idk man you must know you were being tricky there

[rolssky]

Mark's gospel was written at around 70 ce. When a scenario has happened, one can fabricate stories to suit according to their traditional belief about a son of god. Even at times when Jesus was in solitude the conversation has complete stories but in the third person author. How could that be? There is anomaly in the gospel.

[conradbulos]

Uh, guy, actually, if you care to notice, the gospel narratives are so written in clearly divided segments to fit Sunday sermons of major events in Jesus' life done in cycles A, B and C of the Catholic liturgy which you will notice inside churches depicting his nativity, his being found in the temple among the elders, nis sermon on the mount, his arrest and trials, his carrying of the cross, his crucifixion and death on the cross, his resurrection and his glorious ascention, all theology but not necessarily historical facts.

[sliksilk]

CENSORSHIP ! 7 of my comments deleted? Why?? Too uncomfortable???? Another Christian Truth bothers them a lot

[JarekKrawczyk]

The fact is that the accounts of Jesus crucifixion differ significantly, just as Dr. Ehrman has stated. The fact that you have addmitted that the autors of different gospels had different agendas when they were presenting their stories about their versions of Jesus death, they were conveing theological messages, not historical, doesn't help your case at all.
At most only one was historically accurate, and given the whole historical content even the first one by so called Mark, whose gospel was used as a base for Luke and Mathew, the first, therefore likely least embellished, may not be accurate, as it was written 30 plus years after Jesus' death, based on second hand gosip, where his followers were trying to find some sens for his death, while at that point still awaiting his return any day, very soon.
Therefore you cannot really say even how accurately Mark has portrayed the last few hours of Jesus, yet alone few days.
In reality it is likely that Jesus, convinced that he is the messiah promised by God to the Jews, was expecting different and wider reaction, when he has interupted comerce in the Temple, and he was wrong there.
If he wasn't, and he actually did expected to die at that point, as he provoked the Romans to execute him, he certainly was wrong about his return to fulfill his apokaliptic message.

[loledssdafd]

The sad part is that Ehrman knows better...he is deceiving people and he knows it.

[TedSalt]

Great job being Mark II - coming up with a story to explain why people should follow the expected Messiah who was crucified. This was always God's plan. Sorry, I think Bart Ehrman is right. The historical Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet who died. Christianity is a "coverup story" to explain the failed Messiah.

[elliottbest]

I couldn’t disagree with you
More. I am a huge supporter of Dr. Ehrman and through his teaching and excellent understanding of the history of Christianity I understand Christian teachings much more. And I’m even closer to my Christian faith.

[petermetcalfe]

Jesus was clearly aware of his impending doom, but Erhman was simply pointing out a contradiction where he wasn't.
It's all myth anyway so does it really matter?

[silwan]

Jesus never dies for anyone. Each person will be judged for their deeds. Including Jesus. Christianity hangs on the cross. The cross should be hated not loved. Christianity is upside down making no sense. Be good and save yourselves, no one will save you.