Is the New Testament Reliable?


Recommended Posts

Here is a dialogue/debate between a well known critic of the Bible, Bart Ehrman, and Evangelical apologists Mike Licona on the historical reliability of the New Testament. Thought some might find this interesting.

http://www.thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testament/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tesuji said:

Ironically, Ehrman is an atheist 

And yet his observations are not (all?) wrong, it's just his conclusions, or at least some of them, that we should reject.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

And yet his observations are not (all?) wrong, it's just his conclusions, or at least some of them, that we should reject.

Lehi

Ehrman is a popular expert. However, I am filled with darkness when I read his words. I listen to him, reluctantly, to get the knowledge he has. It's almost not worth it.

Ehrman's greatest value is to find out what Satan is preaching, as far as Bible scholarship, so you can be prepared to counter it. Ehrman has destroyed the faith of countless of his students there at UNC Chapel Hill and everywhere books and the internet are sold.
 

A great antidote to Ehrman is the following book. I read it to recover my faith and common sense, after reading Ehrman:

The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
by Brant Pitre and Robert Barron

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483/

 

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tesuji said:
22 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

And yet his observations are not (all?) wrong, it's just his conclusions, or at least some of them, that we should reject.

Ehrman is a popular expert. However, I am filled with darkness when I read his words. I listen to him, reluctantly, to get the knowledge he has. It's almost not worth it.

What works of his I've read make me agree with your assessment. But he does have value in that he has done the hard work (languages, history, etc.) that I'm unable or unwilling to do, and appreciate his contributions. It was either Joseph or Brother Brigham who said that we'd take truth from Satan himself if he offered it. (I suppose the corollary is that we have, first, to assure that it is  the truth, and, second, recognize the falsehood that this truth is packaging for.)

Can we find other sources of Ehrman's truths? No doubt. But these sources are too "Mormon" for a lot of people. When I can point to a more-or-less neutral informant, and show that a lot of the Bible has been tampered with and was not written contemporaneously with the events (or even by eyewitnesses), our article of faith, that the Bible is the word of God "as far as it is [transmitted] correctly" is vindicated, or at least evidenced.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't matter so much if he were merely a Jane Austen scholar, or in some other secular field.

But the main importance of the Bible is not in it's historical value. It is a witness of Christ and a call to follow Him. It is full of saving truths. For example, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not." To keep his views Ehrman must daily reject the truth proclaimed in his own object of study. 

As an atheist Ehrman is a poor person to be teaching anyone about the Bible, about the things that matter in the Bible. He doesn't get its main purpose and actively fights its main message.

Ehrman is not neutral. He is decidedly on the side of Jesus was not the Son of God, and the gospel of Christianity is false.

The purpose of the Bible is to build faith. Ehrman uses it to destroy faith. 

How would a Mormon feel if they introduced their friend to the church and the Book of Mormon. The friend takes all the missionary discussions, attends church for a while, and carefully studies the Book of Mormon. And then decides its all a hoax, and goes on to teach everyone who will listen that the Book of Mormon is fiction and our church is false?

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

Ehrman is not neutral. He is decidedly on the side of Jesus was not the Son of God, and the gospel of Christianity is false.

Yes, that is true enough. But when I claimed he is neutral, it is in the context of us Saints v. the rest of Christendom: he hates us all equally. In that regard, he is neutral.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

As an atheist Ehrman is a poor person to be teaching anyone about the Bible, about the things that matter in the Bible.

The Bible is many things. One of those things is that it is an ancient text. When it comes to this, and in the context of the history of that text, he has a lot of information that most people Christian or "other" do not have. Ehrman is, like it or not, an expert on the historical context for the Bible (Old and New Testaments). No one, least of all me, is claiming that he has a testimony of "the things that matter in the Bible." It's blatantly obvious that he has no such witness. but that does not negate his knowledge of the background and the stories in the text.

He has taken a benighted view of the conflicts in the sacred texts, but the fact that there are conflicts is also important. To me, the differences in the testimony of two or more people viewing the same thing reinforces the truth. For him, it seems that where one Gospel says, e.g., that one woman went to the tomb, and another says it was more than one, they were lying. But it only means that there were women who saw the angel and heard his proclamation of the resurrection.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far (one interview in), it is very interesting. A few reactions, mostly in the order I encounter them, and none of them necessarily need a reaction to in this thread (some of them could probably stand alone as discussion topics).

Ehrman's biography: Interesting how he went from conservative Moody Bible Institute through less conservative Wheaton to more liberal Princeton. Perhaps the most interesting part is how some among the more conservative would call the less conservative groups "non-Christian". I guess that, as a Mormon, I am a little intrigued by the question of who is Christian, since Mormonism is often called non-Christian by many of these same conservative Christians. It just seems to take the sting out of being called "non-Christian" when I see how many other Christians are also called non-Christian.

I also find it interesting that he claims to have had a born again experience, and is now an atheist. I think this hits at some of the uncertainties I have about Protestant/Evangelical theological concepts like "once saved always saved", "assurance of salvation", "can a Christian lose salvation", and so on. It might be inappropriate to really discuss or try to judge the status of Ehrman's salvation, but, as a non-Protestant, non-Sola Fide Christian, I see some interesting questions around salvation suggested by Ehrman's experience.

On History: Since this discussion bills itself as a discussion around the historicity of the NT, I thought this was interesting:

Quote

The view is that even if miracles did happen in the past — let’s simply grant that they happened — there is no way to establish that they happened using the historical disciplines (i.e., to show they are, using your term from earlier, “objective historical truth”). Again, that’s not a result of atheist, anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. It is the result of historical method. Historians simply have no access to supernatural activities involving the actions of God. Only theologians (among the scholars) have access to God. Theologians can certainly affirm that God has done miracles, but they are affirming this on theological grounds, not historical grounds.

He later describes three basic "rules" for judging history which seem reasonable, but have some interesting applications and misapplications to scripture.

"Exaltation" Christology vs. "Incarnation" Christology: Mostly interesting because I tried to think through whether I thought Mormonism has more of an Exaltation Christology or an Incarnation Christology. It is interesting that he says that the earliest Christians had an Exaltation Christology that later developed into an Incarnation Christology.

At the end of the first interview, he gives a summary of his points, and anticipates some of the possible arguments used to validate the historicity of the NT. Some very interesting points made here. The historicity of the NT is interesting, not only because we as LDS will talk about the historicity of the Bible along with others, but we also frequently get into discussions around the historicity of the BoM. How do these same principles apply to our unique book of ancient scripture?

So many interesting things, and that is only one of eight segments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Licona's introductory interview:

Biography: An interesting aspect of how he describes his crisis of faith. Would he have followed the religion of his parents if it had been Islam, or Hindu, or whatever? Or was Christianity trueon its own? I have sometimes wondered the same thing about myself.

The best argument for atheism: the problem of pain, evil, and suffering in the world. Perhaps this stands out because Ehrman attributed much of his loss of faith to this problem. I have not fully studied the philosophy and theology around this question, but it is interesting to contemplate how important and difficult this question is.

In discussing historic philosophy and methodolgy, he discusses a problematic account from Matthew regarding the resurrections of several Saints. Licona suggests that this might be "a poetic element" -- a "special effect" and was not intended to be read as actual history. Interesting that, even the one in this debate who will argue for the historicity of Christ's resurrection, is willing to see fictional or otherwise non-historic elements in the scriptural narrative. Steve Noel entitled this thread "Is the New Testament Reliable?" One element of this question that rattles around in my head is -- must scripture be exactly and historically accurate in all points in order to be reliable, or can scripture include fictional or allegorical or "mythical" elements and still be reliable? Perhaps the accounts of creation and the fall in Genesis are where this question is most often raised. It seems clear to me that at least some of scripture is fictional (the book of Job might be the example with the most consensus), but I still consider scripture "reliable". How much fiction can scripture contain before we decide that it must be rejected?

He includes an interesting discussion on "Biblical inerrancy". Mormonism has oft been criticized for its views on the Bible (see AoF 8). These criticisms are probably rooted in these same questions around "inerrancy". It is interesting that some of the criticisms levied against some of Licona's works are also rooted in "inerrancy", though he claims to be a biblical inerrantist. He points out some of the difficulties around what it means to be an inerrantist. I can see how some of these same questions will apply to Mormonism, no only in how we view the Bible, but also in how we might view the BoM.

Licona's conclusion to this section:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrShorty,

I'm enjoying your thoughts. If we are talking "historical reliability," then I think the Bible is suspect. If I were a historian, I'd be doubtful about the accuracy of anything in the Bible that could not be corroborated with evidence - preferably, hard archaeological evidence. Other ancient documents might also corroborate, but they themselves are often also suspect in their accuracy. Even ancient historians like Herodotus played fast and loose with facts, by our modern standards.

I think we should know about the problems with Bible historicity and transmission, to avoid being naive. Did the flood happen exactly the way literalists think? What if it didn't, and  evidence is found that the Genesis account isn't completely accurate. Some people would be shaken in their faith, because they naively believed something that wasn't true to begin with.

Or, did the John 8 story of the woman taken in adultery happen? It's not in the earliest manuscripts. Maybe it did and was inserted to augment the account. Even if it didn't, it's still a wonderful example of Jesus' mercy and empathy, and the dangers of us judging and condemning others.

I think a more important question for believers is "Is the Bible reliable as a teacher of religious truth"? You have mentioned fiction. I think that even if some of the Bible is fictitious or just inaccurate, it can still teach religious truths. Probably even none of Jesus' parables actually happened, but they teach real truths.

Of course, the important things cannot be fictitious or inaccurate and the Bible still remain valuable to believers. If the whole story of Jesus being resurrected is fiction, then Christianity falls apart.

So you can only stretch the "it's OK if it's fiction" idea so far. I guess all believers have to decide how much would be too much.

As far as inerrancy, I personally think Mormonism is wiser than some other Christian traditions. From Joseph Smith on, we have said the Bible was possibly not translated/transmitted correctly. Modern scholars will tell you the Greek texts we have likely contains errors, omissions, and even intentional alterations. How could they not, given the way it came into being and was passed down to us? And of course, we don't even have the original Greek manuscripts, just copies.

 

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share