The GM Skeptic & Bart Ehrman have a few things they would like us to know & understand.
Rather than quote him directly, I will paraphrase Ehrman correctly then respond.
The authors never mention themselves. This argument lends to either the anonymity or the pseudonymity of the text. By way of contrast many Christians believe that these texts were written by eyewitnesses possibly the Apostles themselves.
By way of reply: There is no evidence that these texts were ever known by another title. Moreover, tosay that the authors never mention themselves is incoherent at best.
Matthew wrote in 3rd person. This is an argument against his authorship.
Any author can write himself into the text of a historical novel. Matthew writing himself into the text in 3rd person is not a problem. According to the Pauline corpus, a reliable teacher, especially an Apostle, does not advertise themselves, especially in the days in which evangelical peddlers were prevalent. John telegraphs his identity. If Mark is Peter’s testimony, then it makes sense to write him into the narrative in 3rd, not first person. The same is true of Matthew. Writing in the 3rd person is evidence of their authenticity, not their inauthenticity.
Nobody titles a book by “…According to & their name.
To say that “Nobody titles a book ‘title, according to name,” is a ridiculous statement. That’s like saying the meaning of “Manual of Theology” by John L. Dagg cannot be legitimately titled “Systematic Theology According to John L Dagg.”. Every time Ehrman titles a book he does the same thing. Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman is rightly interpreted as “Misquoting Jesus according to Bart Ehrman.”
Peter & John are said to be illiterate men in Acts 4.
Acts 4:13 says that Peter and John were uneducated. It does not state that they were illiterate.
What does the text actually mean? They were fishermen, not Pharisees. If he prefers, if there was collusion, given their identities, perhaps Luke is emphasizing their lack of “superapostleness,” to an audience who would construe claims to literacy and education as claims to authority, which was the modus operandi of the superapostle set.
He speaks of other people who heard these stories
Who were these other people who had heard these stories? What documentation of these people does Ehrman have? All he is doing is arguing a theory. I wonder; what Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington, Maurice Robinson, and Andreas Kostenberger would say to that? Why don’t you present their side of this story?
Galatians is addressing Christian Apostles.
Galatians is not addressing Christian Apostles. Galatians is addressing the taking up of what amounts to sacramental works as the basis for justification. Paul is clear that the proper object of saving faith is God Himself, not the doctrine of justification by faith. He is addressing a specific problem — salespeople who were peddling false doctrine.
He drones on about Gnosticism.
Christianity and Gnosticism are two separate religions. At this point Ehrman sound like a Village Atheist writing a new Wikipedia novel.
Clement treated works we consider non-canonical as canonical.
Just because Clement treated a work as Scripture, it does not therefore follow that he was right. This is one of his tactics to go after the canon of the Scriptures in order to justify himself as a scholar.
There was no workable corrective mechanism during the era in which these works are believed to have been written.
Pay attention to how Ehrman speaks about himself. He analogizes between the conditions in the 1st C. AD/CE & his own life experience.
In his own words, people misrepresent him all the time. To paraphrase, “See, legends can accrete rather quickly!”
Really? Ehrman cited Paul’s work in Galatians and his argument with Peter as examples of how people in different locations were correcting each other. Analogizing from the present to the past isn’t a good analogy.
On the one hand, he argues that legends can & do accrete over time & also that a corrective mechanism that meets his threshold for credulity of content didn’t obtain. On the other, he cites the Bible for historical material when it suits him, & that same source material contains information that demonstrates that there was such a corrective mechanism in place.
A tale of 2 Ehrmans : Ehrman 1 says there wasn’t a workable corrective mechanism 2000 years ago. Therefore legends developed which entered into the text. Ehrman 2 uses his own life experience as an example of how this can happen, & he does so while citing Galatians in his presentation & citing Acts for an authoritative statement about Peter & John’s education.
- However Galatians records an incident in which Paul corrected Peter vociferously. (Galatians 2)
- Acts also tells us that Pricilla & Aquila corrected Apollo’s’ teaching. (Apollos 18)
- Acts also informs us that these issues about Yeshua’s identity were hotly debated in the synagogues. (Acts 18 - 19)
- It also informs us that the Bereans tested the teaching that came their way (Acts 17)
- Galatians corrects the Judaizers’ teaching.
- 1 John begins with a statement from the author that corrects the burgeoning Docetic movement.
- 2 Thessalonians 3 reminds the recipients to abide in the teaching of those who had visited them & not that of the Apostles’ competitors, the gospel peddlers & others who made it their business to contradict & even persecute the churches.
Which narrative is true? It’s as if Ehrman & the GMSkeptic, who present themselves as paragons of discernment, can’t follow Ehrman’s own argument.
These letters were encyclical. People were engaged in writing them, carrying them from place to place, teaching through them, and discussing them. If there is time for legends to accrete, there is also time for them to be corrected - thus the accusations by some skeptics that the Gospel writers colluded with each other.
To his credit, Ehrman is not a mythicist — but he does speak of the accretion of legendary material over time, as if this affects the veracity of the text.
Legend is a specific literary genre. What were the sources of these legends? What documentary evidence does Ehrman have? Oh, that’s right, he wants you to listen. Do you pay to be a premium member? He offers a number of packages.
He speaks in probabilistic terms.
Skepticism isn’t an evidentiary argument. Here’s why:
Imagine you see lights in your dark house at 4:30 AM. There is no special effects crew. There are no aliens. You have dreams as vivid as walking next door to your neighbors’ home. They are as sharp and colorful as the Wizard of Oz in HD. You start hearing voices that sound like angels and people you know., so you talk to a Village Atheist who is a psychologist or psychiatrist.
He sits there and diagnoses you with a delusional disorder because his commitment to metaphysical naturalism outweighs his obligation to produce an evidentiary argument to prove to you that these supernatural events did not happen — there is a naturalistic explanation, and you really are delusional. Instead of doing his due diligence, he thinks this is all really improbable, so he does some math in his head and dismisses you.
The next night, as you go to bed, a white window as large as a TV screen opens appears for 5 or 6 seconds. A few days later, both during the day and at night, a light walks through your den. At night, it looks like the Atraxi in Doctor Who shone a light into your home to search for Prisoner Zero.
You see it, and throw your meds away. Then you go to sleep knowing what he did was medical malpractice — he is the deluded one. He diagnosed you based on a math equation, not actual evidence. Instead of confronting you with evidence, he replaced proper medical diagnostic practice with his skepticism.
He continues analogizing from the modern world’s perspective on truth & that of the ancient world.
We aren’t talking about social media and the internet and Q Anon here. He knows full well that one of the reasons there as few scribal errors, and that the reason the New Testament corpus is so comparatively large in comparison to that of other texts is directly related to the value on the preservation of truth by those who served as curators & copiers as well as the target audience in general.
On the one hand, he says that there was time for legends to develop. On the other, he says that there was no corrective mechanism. Then, he cites his personal experience- which forms part of the basis of his belief system — which the GM Skeptic elsewhere stated of his parents (but not himself) is an irrational move - which includes a corrective mechanism.
What evidence does Ehrman have except his own pet theory that there was no corrective mechanism in place? You have to join his membership list if the webinar is free. That first exposure is euphoric isn’t it? Want more? You have to pay your dealer.
How about this: It all happened. The writers, whoever they were, wrote these texts as letters. They were part of a community of people who knew each other. Thanks to Yeshua’s example, they were aware of the need to exercise the humility of Moses in their writing endeavors.
Matthew wrote in 3rd person as a maneuver to avoid being construed as lording his authority over the churches and trumpeting his identity like Jesus’ foils, the Sanhedrin, in Matthew had done and others in the churches were doing as their message spread. Mark did the same thing for Peter.
Luke, who traveled with Paul, was conscious of the “superapostle” movement in which lack of humility and the lording of education and authority were a problem, as well as the evangelical peddler movement. His gospel reflects education, order, and trustworthiness, which are major Pauline themes.
The structure of John and the Johannine epistles reflects an emphasis on love. His audience knew him for those qualities, so we have “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
These people knew each other. We know they traveled. They interacted with each other. Luke says he used sources. They wrote within their own lifetimes. Their ministries overlapped at times. The churches knew them.
They wrote and edited the text together, so that someone like the Prophet Barsabbas (Thaddeus) who was with Barnabas and John Mark, and maybe Silas traveling with Paul, and, at times, Luke, as well as Peter, John, or Mary could contribute to the narrative and edit it, resulting in 3 Synoptic narratives. John wrote separately. The churches trusted these people for good reason.
They were their own mechanism for transmitting the truth. They came from a culture rooted in fidelity to the 9th Commandment and deeply concerned about faithful written transmission of their Scriptures and histories.
The GM Skeptic says he is one to look for evidence. Which of these sounds more coherent, Bart Ehrman and his rambling analogies and theories which amount to an English professor supposing this or that, or a theory that has the benefit of actually being based on what you can deduce from the content of the New Testament?
Ehrman has to postulate a number of items, argue dating schemes and so on just to get going. Evangelical scholarship has the benefit of having documentary evidence to examine, not a bunch of conjecture.
The GM Skeptic had the discernment to call out his own parents about the weird quasi-cult sales scheme in which they were involved. He even evaded the same scheme.
However, his atheism, has made his fraud detector faulty. Ehrman is selling a product, and now the GM Skeptic is too. Well done, Village Atheist! You would never survive interaction with Jason Engwer at Triablogue over this topic. I don’t think Ehrman would either. He’s the Fuller Brush man who is relying on his skepticism and his teaching position to do the heavy lifting.
The GM Skeptic came from a fideistic background. He should be honest and admit that he rejects the authority and authenticity of the Gospels because he has decided that naturalism overrules rationality.
He’s still a fideist, and now he’s trying to sell a product. He has become the very salesman who he accused his parents of being and is now more and more heading down the road into becoming a cult member who gullibly joins the members only club and tries to get other people to sign up, just like the people running the essential oil scheme who tried to recruit him.
God bless us all, each & every one, & “Go & Sin No More.”
