Bart Ehrman claim of the gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

codefro

Guest
was listening to the latest debate on the Protestant podcast show “Unbelievable?” and Ehrman was on there to defend his latest book “Jesus Before the Gospels…”. On the show, he makes the claim (not a new claim) that the believed authors of the Gospels did not write them. One bit of evidence is that none of the Church Father before St. Irenaeus ever referred to any of the Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Ergo, he uses that as a defense of his claim that it was only ascribed later by Irenaeus that those were the authors, but Christians before him did not consider them the authors. It brings up a good question in my head, was it Irenaeus who named those Gospels? If so, did he state his reasoning? Or does he do it in a way that assumes everyone already knows what he is talking about? Any good thoughts on this?
 
This is a very interesting podcast if you are interested in this topic
catholic.com/radio/shows/who-wrote-the-gospels-5091#

Some other articles
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=746
newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

Bottom line is we don’t know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Bart Ehrman doesn’t know either. He is assuming things which may or may not be true.

We do know that the Gospels seem to be in the apostolic tradition and Ehrman would probably agree with that. It isn’t as sensational as saying that he ‘just knows’ that the apostles didn’t write the books nor recite them to someone.
 
The Muratorian Fragment, which some date to about 170, attributes the third Gospel to Luke and the fourth Gospel to John; the names of the authors of the first two Gospels are missing:
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (source)

Even though he does not mention the number of Gospels or their authors, Justin Martyr, writing about the year 155, does describe the authors as “apostles”:
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. ( chap. 66First Apology,)

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (ibid., chap. 67)
 
Papias of Hierapolis, who wrote about 95-120, is quoted in Eusebius’ History of the Church, in seeming reference to the Gospels, as saying:
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. ( book 3, chapter 39, paragraph 15History of the Church,)

So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. (ibid., paragraph 16)
 
There is fine evidence that the four Gospels were written by the four Evangelists. Brant Pitre has recently published a book entitled “The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ”. He points out that the earliest Church Fathers all agree on who wrote the Gospels, and all of the known manuscripts bear these names. He also refutes Bart Ehrman by focusing on the Jewish perspective of Christ. Pitre demonstrates that Ehrman and his fellow liberal scholars lack a compressive understanding of Jewish belief, and that this weakness deeply undermines their theories. He especially points out that their insentience on dating the four Gospels at late dates is due to their refusal to acknowledge that Christ predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple. They simply presuppose that miracles are impossible, and form their theories according to this belief. This is circular reasoning, and it is only one of the many logical flaws he exposes.

Here is an article about this book that explores this topic further:

theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/case-for-jesus-brant-pitre.html

And here is an article by Bishop Robert Barron that points out many of Ehrman’s errors:

wordonfire.org/resources/article/why-jesus-is-god-a-response-to-bart-ehrman/481/
 
Why would he say that “the earliest Church Fathers all agree on who wrote the gospels” when none of them called any gospel by name until the end of the 2nd Century, 100-150 years after they were written?
What is he basing this “agreement” on?

This writer, Pitre, errs if he’s saying Ehrman presupposes miracles are impossible. Ehrman doesn’t say that. He only says it’s not possible for a historian to demonstrate a miracle. Most people would agree with this.

He also errs to lump together Ehrman and his “fellow liberal scholars” in this way.

There are non-liberal and Christian scholars who agree with Ehrman’s views on the above, including Dale B. Martin, Professor of Religious Studies at Yale, specializing in the New Testament and Christian Origins ( B.S., Abilene Christian University,
M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary, Ph.D., Yale University)
And,
Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado (M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), who says in The Case for Christ:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

.

They didn’t simply assert that the Evangelists authored the Gospels. They recorded an already well-founded and orally passed tradition that they did. They recorded historical testimony, as historians do. Ehrman and those who agree with him base their theories on this false premise that the early Church Fathers simply asserted this authorship. There is no legitimate reason to discount the sources the Early Church Fathers cited. If we were to take Ehrman’s concept of a “telephone game” seriously, then why should we believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or anything about Alexander the Great, since no historian recorded these events until centuries after their deaths?

Then it’s not possible for a historian to demonstrate against a miracle either. This would mean a historian can only be objective. I agree if this is what Ehrman really means. But he DOES insist on drawing conclusions contrary to the resurrection. Therefore he contradicts himself. He does not say :

“We can not possibly demonstrate the validity of the resurrection, therefore it is best to conclude that the Apostles believed, and all Christians still believe, on faith; all that can be historically validated is the history of the Church itself in light of this belief.”

Instead he tries to discredit the resurrection by arguing against the non-miracilious subtleties that point towards its possibility. He’s very clever!

Take Christ’s burial for example. A big indicator that his resurrection is historically possible is the fact that his corpse would have easily refuted the Apostles’ claims. All the Sanhedrin had to do was get the Romans to push away the boulder, and viola! The Apostles would’ve been mocked and killed out of historical consciousness. But that’s not at all what happened. Therefore it’s entirely probable there wasn’t a corpse.
Bart Ehrman challenges this by attempting to refute the accounts of Christ’s’ burial. For the above scenario to have been possible, a tomb was necessary. The Gospels account for this by saying that Joseph of Arimathea paid for Christ’s tomb. Ehrman rejects this account by saying there is no mention of this outside of the Gospels. To illustrate his point, he refers to the earliest known Christian creed that Saint Paul records in his First Letter to the Corinthians. This creed mentions the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Ehrman himself agrees that this creed can be traced back to within three years after Christ’s death and resurrection. Scholar James D. G. Dunn traces it as far back as months after the resurrection. Yet Ehrman focuses solely on the word “burial” in this creed and questions why Joseph of Arimathea is not mentioned. His answer is:

“My hunch is that it is because he knew nothing about a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.”

This is an enormous leap when one considers the creed he himself concedes is an early account. A creed is meant to be a brief, easily remembered hymn to orally pass down history. There is no reason why Joseph of Arimathea needs to be mentioned. The fact that Christ’s burial is even mentioned is itself a testament to its importance to the creed’s message, which is the resurrection. Also note that this creed proves an early belief in the resurrection. There is no possibility for legends or myth-making this short after an event. That the resurrection was being preached this early in Aramaic indicates that this belief can be traced right back to Judea, ergo we are back to the original question. Where was the corpse? If this creed was being sung soon after the event, why were the Sanhedrin not able to produce the corpse as evidence against its message?
Because Ehrman cherry picks this creed to suit his “hunch”, he does not notice how the creed itself lends credibility AGAINST his hunch. An objective historian would say that this creed’s earlier origin supports the contention that Christ’s tomb was empty. Note I didn’t say this proves the resurrection. It simply points to it being far more probable and evidence-based than Ehrman’s hunch. Ehrman cherry-picks frequently. Bishop Robert Barron offers far more examples that article I posted.

You did not address Ehrman’s weak understanding of Jewish tradition. This is an EXTREMELY important point. Christ was Jewish. Everything he said and did was within the context of Jewish culture. Part of the reason Ehrman overlooks scriptural nuances that discredit his theories is that he does not see the implications they would have had in ancient Israel. Any New Testament theory that lacks an thorough understanding of Jewish Custom and Tradition is based on faulty premises and is therefore suspect. Please read Dr. Pitre’s books. He offers better arguments that I can.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Why would he say that “the earliest Church Fathers all agree on who wrote the gospels” when none of them called any gospel by name until the end of the 2nd Century, 100-150 years after they were written?
What is he basing this “agreement” on?

This writer, Pitre, errs if he’s saying Ehrman presupposes miracles are impossible. Ehrman doesn’t say that. He only says it’s not possible for a historian to demonstrate a miracle. Most people would agree with this.

He also errs to lump together Ehrman and his “fellow liberal scholars” in this way.

There are non-liberal and Christian scholars who agree with Ehrman’s views on the above, including Dale B. Martin, Professor of Religious Studies at Yale, specializing in the New Testament and Christian Origins ( B.S., Abilene Christian University,
M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary, Ph.D., Yale University)
And,
Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado (M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), who says in The Case for Christ:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”

.
Click to expand...
They didn’t simply assert that the Evangelists authored the Gospels. They recorded an already well-founded and orally passed tradition that they did. They recorded historical testimony, as historians do. Ehrman and those who agree with him base their theories on this false premise that the early Church Fathers simply asserted this authorship. There is no legitimate reason to discount the sources the Early Church Fathers cited. If we were to take Ehrman’s concept of a “telephone game” seriously, then why should we believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or anything about Alexander the Great, since no historian recorded these events until centuries after their deaths?

If what Ehrman says is true, then it’s not possible for a historian to demonstrate against a miracle either. This would mean a historian can only be objective. I agree if this is what Ehrman really means. But he DOES insist on drawing conclusions contrary to the resurrection. Therefore he contradicts himself. He does not say:

“We can not possibly demonstrate the validity of the resurrection, therefore it is best to conclude that the Apostles believed, and all Christians still believe, on faith; all that can be historically validated is the history of the Church itself in light of this belief.”

Instead he tries to discredit the resurrection by arguing against the non-miracilious subtleties that point towards its possibility. He’s very clever!

Take Christ’s burial for example. A big indicator that his resurrection is historically possible is the fact that his corpse would have easily refuted the Apostles’ claims. All the Sanhedrin had to do was get the Romans to push away the boulder, and viola! The Apostles would’ve been mocked and killed out of historical consciousness. But that’s not at all what happened. Therefore it’s entirely probable there wasn’t a corpse.
Bart Ehrman challenges this by attempting to refute the accounts of Christ’s’ burial. For the above scenario to have been possible, a tomb was necessary. The Gospels account for this by saying that Joseph of Arimathea paid for Christ’s tomb. Ehrman rejects this account by saying there is no mention of this outside of the Gospels. To illustrate his point, he refers to the earliest known Christian creed that Saint Paul records in his First Letter to the Corinthians. This creed mentions the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Ehrman himself agrees that this creed can be traced back to within three years after Christ’s death and resurrection. Scholar James D. G. Dunn traces it as far back as months after the resurrection. Yet Ehrman focuses solely on the word “burial” in this creed and questions why Joseph of Arimathea is not mentioned. His answer is:

“My hunch is that it is because he knew nothing about a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.”

This is an enormous leap when one considers the creed he himself concedes is an early account. A creed is meant to be a brief, easily remembered hymn to orally pass down history. There is no reason why Joseph of Arimathea needs to be mentioned. The fact that Christ’s burial is even mentioned is itself a testament to its importance to the creed’s message, which is the resurrection. Also note that this creed proves an early belief in the resurrection. There is no possibility for legends or myth-making this short after an event. That the resurrection was being preached this early in Aramaic indicates that this belief can be traced right back to Judea, ergo we are back to the original question. Where was the corpse? If this creed was being sung soon after the event, why were the Sanhedrin not able to produce the corpse as evidence against its message?
Because Ehrman cherry picks this creed to suit his “hunch”, he does not notice how the creed itself lends credibility AGAINST his hunch. An objective historian would say that this creed’s earlier origin supports the contention that Christ’s tomb was empty. Note I didn’t say this proves the resurrection. It simply points to it being far more probable and evidence-based than Ehrman’s hunch. Ehrman cherry-picks frequently. Bishop Robert Barron offers far more examples in that article I posted.

You did not address Ehrman’s weak understanding of Jewish tradition. This is an EXTREMELY important point. Christ was Jewish. Everything he said and did was within the context of Jewish culture. Part of the reason Ehrman overlooks scriptural nuances that discredit his theories is that he does not see the implications they would have had in ancient Israel. Any New Testament theory that lacks an thorough understanding of Jewish beliefs and traditions is based on faulty premises and is therefore suspect. Please read Dr. Pitre’s books. He offers better arguments that I can.
 
HoistedSheep said:
Any New Testament theory that lacks an thorough understanding of Jewish Custom and Tradition is based on faulty premises and is therefore suspect. Please read Dr. Pitre’s books. He offers better arguments that I can.
Click to expand...
Who is doing the defining of ‘Jewish Custom and Tradition’ here? Where in ‘Jewish Custom and Tradition’, for example, is a man a God?
 
Kaninchen said:
Who is doing the defining of ‘Jewish Custom and Tradition’ here? Where in ‘Jewish Custom and Tradition’, for example, is a man a God?
Click to expand...
I’m referring to Dr. Brant Pitre. Part of his specialization is ancient Judaism, which he studied to better understand the Old Testament. By Jewish customs and traditions, I mean the ways Christ used Jewish scripture and teaching to illustrate that he was God. I’m afraid I don’t have the time or energy to lay out Dr. Pitre’s arguments. I recommend you read the book for an answer to your question, as he gives better arguments than I can. The book isn’t meant to challenge Judaism. It simply emphases the Jewish origins of Christ’s teachings to further emphasize why his disciples believed he was God.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
If anyone’s interested, see this series of articles critiquing Pitre’s The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ.
Click to expand...
The man who blogs on the website, Neil Godfrey aka. vridar, is apparently a Christ myther (tektonticker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/neil-godfreys-high-context-bungle.html?m=1). In terms of historical scholarship, Christ mythism is on the fringe, if even that. If he takes a position that is so at odds with the mainstream on the historicity of Jesus Christ, it should signal a word of warning of his critiques about Jesus or the BIble.
 
HoistedSheep said:
I’m referring to Dr. Brant Pitre. Part of his specialization is ancient Judaism, which he studied to better understand the Old Testament. By Jewish customs and traditions, I mean the ways Christ used Jewish scripture and teaching to illustrate that he was God. I’m afraid I don’t have the time or energy to lay out Dr. Pitre’s arguments. I recommend you read the book for an answer to your question, as he gives better arguments than I can. The book isn’t meant to challenge Judaism. It simply emphases the Jewish origins of Christ’s teachings to further emphasize why his disciples believed he was God.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reference but I don’t need to read it, you’ve told me enough. 🙂
 
DaddyGirl said:
Of course it’s possible for myth-making to have begun. It’s possible for it to have begun days after Jesus was crucified. Someone sees a vision and tells others…and so on, and so on.

That’s because I think he has a very *strong *understanding of Jewish tradition. And also, of Roman tradition–namely, that it was tradition for the bodies of crucified criminals to remain for days on the cross, then be buried in a mass grave. And Pontious Pilate was known to be a vicious, insensitive ruler who didn’t care at all about Jewish customs and had never once been known to allow a crucified criminal to be taken down and buried.

.
Click to expand...
Ehrman doesn’t know if the guards were bribed and Jesus was taken away to be buried as even he attests was historically believed by Christians from the earliest of days. He is making assumptions based upon very little knowledge about Pontius Pilate. Not good history.
 
Reading up on all this I find this commentary about Ehrman’s book, “How Jesus Became God” compelling:

*Gods and men in the Ancient World

The first two chapters describe the malleable barrier between gods and men. The first few pages left a sour taste in my mouth. Ehrman begins with a story about a first-century miracle worker whose disciples believed he was the Son of God and had survived his own death. But, surprise! Ehrman’s not talking about Jesus but another supposed miracle-worker and contemporary of Jesus named Apollonius of Tyana. This sets the stage for Ehrman to talk about how in the ancient world men who become gods and vice-versa were really a dime a dozen.

However, Ehrman neglects to mention that although we have multiple sources for the life of Jesus we only have one source for Apollonius. Ehrman says this source, Philostratus, recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but neglects to mention that the only eyewitness mentioned is one Damis from Nineveh, a city that didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist either). Ehrman also doesn’t mention how the wife of emperor Severus commissioned Philostratus to write the biography of Apollonius over a century after Apollonius’s “death.” The Life of Apollonius was probably created as a competitor to the Gospel accounts of Jesus which, by that point, were in wide circulation across the Roman Empire.

Ehrman acknowledges this theory in a footnote but then claims that all he is doing is showing how belief in “God-men” was easily accepted in the Roman cultural context; but I find this answer unsatisfying. If belief in a God-man like Apollonius was only easily accepted because it was crafted to imitate Jesus, it still doesn’t explain how Jesus’ divinity came about.

Perhaps the most striking concession Ehrman makes in this section is that Apollonius is the only story of a true “God-man” like Jesus. Ehrman writes, “I don’t know of any other cases in ancient Greek or Roman thought of this kind of “God-man,” where an already existing divine being is said to be born of a mortal woman." If the story of Apollonius is parasitic upon the story of Jesus, then that makes the story of the “God-man” Jesus all the more exceptional and difficult to explain without recourse to a miracle.

Read the rest here: catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review*

The above article also suggests some books for further reading:
How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. As the tile suggests, this book represents the viewpoints of five authors who disagree with Ehrman’s thesis. Kind of a mixed bag when it comes to quality, but Craig Evans’s essay on Jesus’ burial is worth the whole price.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. This book by Richard Bauckham is a must-read for anyone who glosses over Ehrman’s claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and so cannot be trusted.

[The Resurrection of the Son of God](The Resurrection of the Son of God.). The well-known New Testament scholar N.T. Wright gives one of the most comprehensive treatments of both the resurrection and the surrounding cultural context that makes a natural “legend-based” explanation of the resurrection very implausible.
 
_Abyssinia said:
The man who blogs on the website, Neil Godfrey aka. vridar, is apparently a Christ myther (tektonticker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/neil-godfreys-high-context-bungle.html?m=1). In terms of historical scholarship, Christ mythism is on the fringe, if even that. If he takes a position that is so at odds with the mainstream on the historicity of Jesus Christ, it should signal a word of warning of his critiques about Jesus or the BIble.
Click to expand...
Almost two years after the above linked article was written, Neil Godfrey was still counting himself as an agnostic on the question of Jesus’s historical existence. Such is the inherent risk of citing JP Holding on any subject.

In that the mainstream generally opposes the notion of the direct apostolic authorship and early dating of the gospels, wouldn’t that put Pitre’s view out there on the fringe of scholarship? If it does – and if we use your criteria – wouldn’t we be justified in ignoring his argument?
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Reading up on all this I find this commentary about Ehrman’s book, “How Jesus Became God” compelling:

*Gods and men in the Ancient World

The first two chapters describe the malleable barrier between gods and men. The first few pages left a sour taste in my mouth. Ehrman begins with a story about a first-century miracle worker whose disciples believed he was the Son of God and had survived his own death. But, surprise! Ehrman’s not talking about Jesus but another supposed miracle-worker and contemporary of Jesus named Apollonius of Tyana. This sets the stage for Ehrman to talk about how in the ancient world men who become gods and vice-versa were really a dime a dozen.

However, Ehrman neglects to mention that although we have multiple sources for the life of Jesus we only have one source for Apollonius. Ehrman says this source, Philostratus, recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but neglects to mention that the only eyewitness mentioned is one Damis from Nineveh, a city that didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist either). Ehrman also doesn’t mention how the wife of emperor Severus commissioned Philostratus to write the biography of Apollonius over a century after Apollonius’s “death.” The Life of Apollonius was probably created as a competitor to the Gospel accounts of Jesus which, by that point, were in wide circulation across the Roman Empire.

Ehrman acknowledges this theory in a footnote but then claims that all he is doing is showing how belief in “God-men” was easily accepted in the Roman cultural context; but I find this answer unsatisfying. If belief in a God-man like Apollonius was only easily accepted because it was crafted to imitate Jesus, it still doesn’t explain how Jesus’ divinity came about.

Perhaps the most striking concession Ehrman makes in this section is that Apollonius is the only story of a true “God-man” like Jesus. Ehrman writes, “I don’t know of any other cases in ancient Greek or Roman thought of this kind of “God-man,” where an already existing divine being is said to be born of a mortal woman." If the story of Apollonius is parasitic upon the story of Jesus, then that makes the story of the “God-man” Jesus all the more exceptional and difficult to explain without recourse to a miracle.

Read the rest here: catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review*

The above article also suggests some books for further reading:
How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. As the tile suggests, this book represents the viewpoints of five authors who disagree with Ehrman’s thesis. Kind of a mixed bag when it comes to quality, but Craig Evans’s essay on Jesus’ burial is worth the whole price.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. This book by Richard Bauckham is a must-read for anyone who glosses over Ehrman’s claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and so cannot be trusted.

[The Resurrection of the Son of God](The Resurrection of the Son of God.). The well-known New Testament scholar N.T. Wright gives one of the most comprehensive treatments of both the resurrection and the surrounding cultural context that makes a natural “legend-based” explanation of the resurrection very implausible.
Click to expand...
Definitely want to check out these three recommended books.
 
codefro said:
was listening to the latest debate on the Protestant podcast show “Unbelievable?” and Ehrman was on there to defend his latest book “Jesus Before the Gospels…”. On the show, he makes the claim (not a new claim) that the believed authors of the Gospels did not write them. One bit of evidence is that none of the Church Father before St. Irenaeus ever referred to any of the Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Ergo, he uses that as a defense of his claim that it was only ascribed later by Irenaeus that those were the authors, but Christians before him did not consider them the authors. It brings up a good question in my head, was it Irenaeus who named those Gospels? If so, did he state his reasoning? Or does he do it in a way that assumes everyone already knows what he is talking about? Any good thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Michael Licona reviewed Ehrman’s book on this topic here:

risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god
 
DaddyGirl said:
The “telephone game” isn’t Ehrman’s concept; he merely uses it to describe the action of the passing on of stories…
Click to expand...
Yes, and he should know better.

Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:
  1. To play Telephone, you’ll need a group of players. More is better.
  2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words – for instance, try using a phrase such as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia.” The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
  3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.
  4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
  5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
  6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
  7. What began as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia” might end up as “Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand.” If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and p(name removed by moderator)ointing where the various changes occurred.
Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:
  1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.
  2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
  3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
  4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
  5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.
  6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.
  7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.
In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.
 
Ehrman’s popular scholarship is frequently criticized by other atheist scholars in his field, because he argues in intellectually dishonest ways. For example, one minute he is saying that Epiphanius was lying about having been groomed sexually by the Borborygians in his youth, and that all his info about them was lies. But later, he uses info about them that he likes, and for which the only ancient source is Epiphanius–and he does not give credit to the source.

You cannot have it both ways, if you are a reputable scholar, but Ehrman pulls this sort of thing all the time. It makes him pretty useless as a source, because you have to recheck him all the time. As long as you don’t know how to check his sources, though, he sounds plausible. (Much like a History Channel show about the Bermuda Triangle.)

Moving along… As Pitre and others point out, you don’t see any of the Gospels attributed to Bob or Moses or Paul, even though we have more Gospel manuscripts from the ancient world than we have of any other ancient book. Either they have a title saying it is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; or there is no attribution; or the front bit is missing so the attribution is missing too. Pitre also includes some nice bits showing the multiple author attributions found for various other writings of similar age and authority, in early manuscripts.
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Reading up on all this I find this commentary about Ehrman’s book, “How Jesus Became God” compelling:

*Gods and men in the Ancient World

The first two chapters describe the malleable barrier between gods and men. The first few pages left a sour taste in my mouth. Ehrman begins with a story about a first-century miracle worker whose disciples believed he was the Son of God and had survived his own death. But, surprise! Ehrman’s not talking about Jesus but another supposed miracle-worker and contemporary of Jesus named Apollonius of Tyana. This sets the stage for Ehrman to talk about how in the ancient world men who become gods and vice-versa were really a dime a dozen.

However, Ehrman neglects to mention that although we have multiple sources for the life of Jesus we only have one source for Apollonius. Ehrman says this source, Philostratus, recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but neglects to mention that the only eyewitness mentioned is one Damis from Nineveh, a city that didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist either). Ehrman also doesn’t mention how the wife of emperor Severus commissioned Philostratus to write the biography of Apollonius over a century after Apollonius’s “death.” The Life of Apollonius was probably created as a competitor to the Gospel accounts of Jesus which, by that point, were in wide circulation across the Roman Empire.

Ehrman acknowledges this theory in a footnote but then claims that all he is doing is showing how belief in “God-men” was easily accepted in the Roman cultural context; but I find this answer unsatisfying. If belief in a God-man like Apollonius was only easily accepted because it was crafted to imitate Jesus, it still doesn’t explain how Jesus’ divinity came about.

Perhaps the most striking concession Ehrman makes in this section is that Apollonius is the only story of a true “God-man” like Jesus. Ehrman writes, “I don’t know of any other cases in ancient Greek or Roman thought of this kind of “God-man,” where an already existing divine being is said to be born of a mortal woman." If the story of Apollonius is parasitic upon the story of Jesus, then that makes the story of the “God-man” Jesus all the more exceptional and difficult to explain without recourse to a miracle.

Read the rest here: catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review*

The above article also suggests some books for further reading:
How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. As the tile suggests, this book represents the viewpoints of five authors who disagree with Ehrman’s thesis. Kind of a mixed bag when it comes to quality, but Craig Evans’s essay on Jesus’ burial is worth the whole price.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. This book by Richard Bauckham is a must-read for anyone who glosses over Ehrman’s claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and so cannot be trusted.

[The Resurrection of the Son of God](The Resurrection of the Son of God.). The well-known New Testament scholar N.T. Wright gives one of the most comprehensive treatments of both the resurrection and the surrounding cultural context that makes a natural “legend-based” explanation of the resurrection very implausible.
Click to expand...
I listened to a debate between Ehrman and Baukham, and I wasn’t very impressed with Baukham’s defense rhetoric. Ehrman makes the mistake of applying studies of memory in today’s society and applying it to the ancient world. They both make a correct point, that memories in the ancient world were no better or worse than in the world today. YET- we know that the ancient world place much importance on memory and of the oral tradition. It was more important that people memorize as much as they could cause chances were you would never see such stories written down and easily accessible. So there likely had to be memorization techniques at play. Reason being because we have known memorization techniques from other periods. It would make sense that some existed in the Jewish and Greco/ Roman societies as well. Not to mention that just because a story appears once in a narrative, doesn’t mean Jesus was repeatedly really nailing it in that his apostles remember his words. So Ehrman does make a mistake of trying to cram the modern methodology into the classical world, and then saying they don’t line up. Of course they don’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top