Sit back and enjoy Bart Ehrman’s research regarding what we know about the origin of the Bible. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . I’ve previously posted about Ehrman’s 2007 book, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman starts by telling the audience about a question that he asked his students recently: If the Bible is really the inerrant word of God, why aren’t all believers actually reading it? Many of Ehrman’s own students truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but large numbers of them haven’t yet read the entire Bible. Ehrman asks: “If God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He said?”
Most of this lecture concerns the origin of the modern version of the Bible. Ehrman presents a fascinating history of a book based upon thousands of incomplete and conflicting earlier versions. These versions are riddled with mistakes. The oldest copy that we have of any book of the new testament is a tiny scrap from the Gospel by “John” called “P52). It is about the size of a credit card and it only contains a couple sentences. It is dated at “the first half of the second century” (minute 15 of the video). Our earliest surviving complete copy of the Gospel of “John” was created about the year 200 A.D.
Most of our manuscripts of the Bible are not anywhere near this old. Most of our manuscripts were created around the beginning of the third century (around the year 200). The earliest manuscripts of most of the books of the Bible date from the 7th or 8th century. By the time that a man named John Mill actually tracked the conflicts among the 100 manuscripts he reviewed (about 300 years ago), he noted about 30,000 differences. We now have about 7,000 manuscripts, and nobody has been able to add up all the differences among these copies (21:30). “There are more differences in our existing Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” So, then how can we really know what any of the writers really said? Ehrman characterizes this as “a problem.” Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.”
I especially enjoyed Ehrman’s description of one scribe’s mistaken version of the alleged genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and Eve (27:00). Many other more significant translation problems have been detected by modern scholars (32:00).
Unfortunately, this video has a glitch and it ended at the 34-minute mark. This is as far as I got tonight. I now see that there are other versions of Ehrman’s lectures available in ten-minute chunks, starting here. I’m planning on viewing the remainder of Ehrman’s lecture, and I’ll report on it in the comments.
I would add a few questions to the one Ehrman asked at the top of his lecture: If the Bible really is the inspired word of God, why aren’t more believers taking the time to understand the genesis of the Bible itself? Why aren’t they more interested in learning about the things that Ehrman has researched throughout his career. Why don’t they care more about the inaccuracies and contradictions? As Ehrman asked, don’t you need to be confident that you know the accurate version of the Bible before telling others how “important” it is? I raise these questions because, in my experience of having discussed the Bible with hundreds of Christian believers, almost none of them know about these critically important issues raised by Ehrman, and it’s a rare American Christian believer who exhibits any curiosity regarding these issues. How strange, unless, as Daniel Dennett suggested, that most believers believe in belief, rather than in the religious stories that they claim to be true.
Ehrman has also published, Jesus, Interrupted, in which he argues that “the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages–they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts.” At his website, Ehrman further states:
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
At makeuseof.com, I spotted this Tweet signed by "Almightygod":
"To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it. They just scroll to the botto and click 'I agree.'"
Erich – It's actually more pernicious than that – most Christians* become signatories by proxy to the contract when they are born — Christianity is merely a grandfathered clause resulting from an ancestor choosing** to become Christian.
* Almost all religions automatically include the children of practitioners – the children don't get a choice. By the time they are old enough to make a choice, they've usually been brainwashed into their particular tribal mores.
** it's actually even more complex — since historically people took the religion of their lord*** — especially in central Europe. During the 30 years war, as lords frequently changed their allegiance to or against the (Catholic) church, their serfs would, by definition, change too.
*** or of their conqueror (the 'hidden jews' [Muranos]of Spain and Europe, and so on)
Tony: Instead of asking a person "What is your religion?", Perhaps we should start asking, "What is the religion of your parents, which you then accepted un-self-critically?"
Based on a recent article in Science, I suspect that "overimitating" is part of the reason children so readily accept the religion of their parents as their "morality." http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/23/anima… This is a fascinating concept to me, that self-critical switches get turned off among families, and we tend to accomplish the important things they do (e.g., morality) exactly HOW they do them (i.e., an entire set of religious practices). Most people don't shop for a religion. Even those who shop don't tend to stray outside of the manner in which they were raised. Christians might switch to other types of christianity, but they don't tend to become Buddhists or Hindus.
Erich: I suspect you're right. A lot of people seem unable/unwilling to move beyond the playground trope of "My dad's better than your dad!" – it infects them even as (supposed) adults.
It's so much easier to let someone else do your thinking for you.
Should religion get a pass?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/2…
I have a very difficult time with people misleading and misinterpreting the Bible. Especially a man of Bart Ehrman's caliber. If people are reading the bible through his books, they will be very mislead. Read it for yourself and don't just read it, but understand it. There are also many Bible critics that have the same credentials of Bart Erhman that disagree with him about dates and what is truly a contradiction. I will talk more about this later, but just to answer some of the above accusations. I would find it more suspicious if they all agreed perfectly. We all know people will describe things they see differently. also, of course Matthew and Paul were at odds. Jesus came for the Jews. He was a law abiding Jew, only healing 2 Gentiles in his entire ministry. He told his disciples "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles". After Jesus was crucified. A man named Saul, who was later named Paul was appointed the apostle of the Gentiles, preaching the Gospel of Grace. Matthew was still under law and Jesus fulfilled the law by his death. Therefore we are now under grace. They (the apostles) still believed in the law and Paul was trying to tell them no, we are now under grace. The trinity was apparent at Jesus' baptism and a reference in Paul's epistle as well, which I can't remember off hand, but will get. Much more info regarding this.
Samantha
I find it interesting that you castigate Mr Ehrman for misleading people and misinterpreting the bible. I suppose that according to your lights, he does – but his and your interpretations are just that – interpretations.
Can you point to more compelling and cohesive evidence that your interpretation is right (i.e. evidence that does not require a priori acceptance of the bible as truth)?
If you can, please provide citations – I am certain that everyone would love to see such evidence.
Tony Coyle, Do you have any other citations (other than Bart Erhman's books) to disprove the Bible as truth? Another words, can you do what you are asking me to do in reverse? I will give as many examples I can.
Samantha:
It normally falls upon the person making claims to provide citations – and that would be you, since you claim to have knowledge about the bible not apparent to those of us who have simply read the dang thing.
However, one source I find useful, is Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It is based on the KJV version of the bible, which is the 'source of truth' for the majority of the protestant sects in the US (I believe). As such, it uses the same 'approved' version for analysis that believers use for 'proof'.
There are some people who have attempted to refute the SAB – however they do so by re-interpreting 'original' source material – which simply adds yet another layer of obfuscation and interpretation. If the KJV is so wrong that it cannot stand scrutiny, why does any refutation of the statements made require access to ancient texts or special knowledge?
Some other sites/sources:
The Atheists Bible Companion focuses on the NT (since that is the 'Christian' document) and provides commentary on most of the extant current versions of the Christian bible
Bible Study is a Christian resource site for bible study. I often use this as a jumping off point for current apologetics and commentary.
<a href="http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&source=hp&q=bible+study+tools" rel="nofollow">Google is your friend.
Tony (hoping the html is well formed!)
You are also making a claim that the bible is not true (one just has to read your comments to come to that conclusion). So there is a responsibility on your part to provide citations. However, what you have given me does not fit your criteria. In your case, you have given me more of the same as Bart Erhman's book. You asked me to provide evidence from sources other than ones that believe the Bible to be TRUE. You have given me sources that believe the the Bible to be UNTRUE. Not acceptable under your terms.
Samantha:
It's obvious you misunderstand the nature of 'truth claims' and the requirement for evidence therein.
I have no claims regarding the bible: it is, to me, simply a book. That I assign no 'truth' or mystical properties to it or its content is not a claim – it is the absence of a claim. It is simply the 'Null Hypothesis' if you will, and requires no specific evidence. It is the default position.
Christians, on the other hand, have a very specific claim regarding the bible: it the the written word of god. This is an extraordinary claim, that is not made for any other book. To support such a claim, you must be able to provide some extraordinary evidence, and that evidence must, by definition, not be contained in the book you claim to be divine!
Onto the claims.
I simply asked you to provide some additional evidence of your claim that the bible is true that does not, itself, depend on the bible – since that would be tautological proof (and logically foolish). I did not ask you to provide anything other than that. If you find such a task challenging… then perhaps your foundation of truth is not quite so solid as you heretofore thought. Note that the typical 'apologetics' do not count as proof, since they argue from the book, and about the book, and reference no other source or authority (other than perhaps their desire for such to be so).
Despite the lack of need to provide citations or evidence on my part (since the claim is not mine), I gave you two additional sources of 'skeptical' reading of the bible. I gave you a third source which is entirely Christian. Lastly, I provided a general google search which delivers a multiplicity of resources, the vast majority of which are Christian.
One site I purposely did not provide is a link to AiG since I don't wish to support or promote such rabid and entirely dishonest liars.
So: I provided a number of links – no direct citations, but a wealth of information that confirms (from both sides) my perspective of the bible and religion in general.
You have provided none.
Shall we try again?
Samantha: you said Jesus
Except when he wasn't.
He violated the sabbath laws (and declared himself lord of the sabbath.) He utterly violated the laws for the proper handling of lepers. He also forgave sins thereby short-circuiting the required temple sacrifice. He encountered blasphemers and adulterers and never called for the punishment mandated by the law.
But, that's what you meant, wasn't it?
One last thing to Tony Coyle and all others, We all have access to the same information. There are tons of articles disputing and critiquing Bart Erhman's books and done very well (have you looked at any of those?). We all know about the ancient manuscripts and archaeological findings, plus the writing of Josephus, Tacitus (the changing of the e to an i is disputed, and could also change the meaning to "good") and Pliny the Younger. All secular historians mentioning Jesus or the persecution of he Jews. You believe it was a religious movement to get into power which eventually happened in the 4th century under Constantine(he was not such a great man, by the way). Thousands were persecuted (fed to lions, burned or torn apart by dogs) not great ways to die. All to advance a religious movement? Only a fool would give his life up for nothing. Someone here mentioned that all of the other gods have since faded away. That tells me that only the God of the Bible has withstood the test of time. You also have to be blind to not see what is going on in the world and especially the middle east. Russia and Iran are uniting and when (not if) Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, it's all over. That will be the beginning of the end. Tony Coyle wrote that I have some "secret knowledge" . I have access to the same information as everyone else. Perhaps, my secret knowledge is the evidence of Jesus in my life. I will pray for you all and hope the Holy Spirit opens your eyes and your heart.
Samantha:
You demonstrate by your last comment that you read everything through the lens of your belief. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that – except when you then try to argue truth or validity.
Through that lens, it appears that anything I say against your 'evidence' is not actually an attack on that evidence, but is instead an attack upon you and your beliefs (a very different thing).
You seem not to have comprehended an earlier comment from Mark regarding the early Christians as a political faction, composed largely of slaves. Slaves were likely to die from any number of otherwise minor infractions – so Christianity gave them more, not less, opportunity – and the possible cost (death) was an everyday reality for them anyway – no loss and much gain.
You also have a strange bias regarding other gods – I'd hazard that Ginesh (and his ilk) has quite a substantial following and has not 'faded away' – so your god is still only one of many. Regardless, the 'older gods' referenced were those of Rome – and those gods were deposed for political reasons (when Rome adopted Christianity as its state religion). They did not disappear entirely – we still celebrate many pagan gods, by proxy, at Christmas, and the equinox, and so on. The Roman's had, by the 4th century CE, a long tradition of co-option of local gods into their pantheon – the nascent Christian hegemony simply adopted that same behavior.
You also then conflate (as do many dominionists) the current geopolitical struggles (Russia & Iran! ORLY!?) with the coming rapture. It seems the same is true in every generation, and in every decade. (How many times have the Witnesses revised their prediction?)
You finally succumb to snark, regarding my comment about your 'secret knowledge'. I admit that comment was pure snark on my part, but it was also truthful. Absent any observable evidence, all you can point to in defense of your stance is 'secret knowledge'. You still have not posted any non-biblical evidence. I somehow doubt that you will, since you have not done so despite ample opportunity (and multiple comments since the original request).
You may pray for me as you wish. You are entirely free to do, despite a lack of evidence of any proven efficacy (indeed – in the face of many studies that show no benefit whatsoever beyond a placebo/nocebo depending on the actors).
That is the benefit of living in a liberal, secular society.
Regarding the 'opening of eyes' – perhaps I can quote some scripture back to you: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye (Luke 6:41)
I'd be sad to see you go – you at least seemed to be willing to discuss and debate honestly.
Samantha:
Most of us here have researched the religious question to our own satisfaction. It appears that you are coming the matter looking for reasons to maintain your faith, which will give you a different perspective, and therefore different results. What it all comes down to is that most religions make fantastic claims, which are really only convincing to those who already believe in the religion.
For example, the Christian story in its broad strokes goes like this:
The world and everything in it was created in 6 days by an omnipotent, omniscient God. Adam sinned by eating the fruit of a tree which offered knowledge, and became mortal. Everyone on earth is descended from this one man. This god impregnated a virgin woman, who gave birth to the son of God, who is also a god. This man lived a perfect life and yet was killed to satisfy a bizarre demand for justice, create by God the father. To remember this murder, Christians must drink human blood and eat human flesh, at least symbolically.
To borrow one of Erich's favorite thought experiments, what would a Martian who came to Earth think of those beliefs? I imagine a Martian would find those sorts of beliefs silly, although hey are a common-enough creation myth, so there's at least some anthropological value.
But then, why do you believe in Christianity rather than Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Shinto? I know you believe it's because yours is true, and the others are false. But there are millions of believers in each of those religions, that are just as devout as you are. Stephen Roberts is quoted as saying:
You've mentioned several times now the theme that because the early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs, that is indicative of the truth of those beliefs. This is unconvincing though, because people die every day for foolish beliefs. Consider the case of a religiously-motivated suicide bomber. He or she believe whole-heartedly that they are protecting their religion, and that by blowing themselves up they are earning a place of glory for themselves. To you and I, that's a foolish belief, but they continue to die in the name of their religion, just as early Christians did. As you say, "not great ways to die. All to advance a religious movement? Only a fool would give up his life for nothing." So are these people fools, or is it possible that people can give up their lives in the name of a religion that is not true? There are probably millions of instances of persecution and murder throughout history, and probably relatively few of those are Christians, does that make the other religions any more true?
You say the god of the bible has stood the test of time, but what of the other gods? The god of Islam is understood within Islam to be the same as the god of the Old Testament. The god of the Old Testament is quite different from the god of the New Testament, so who knows? Some Hindu gods that are still worshipped today go back at least as far as the early bible, does that make you believe in them?
Again, when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Samantha writes:—"Thousands were persecuted (fed to lions, burned or torn apart by dogs) not great ways to die. All to advance a religious movement? Only a fool would give his life up for nothing."
None of us here said they did it for nothing. You suggest they did it for one thing and, by inference, if they indeed did it for something else, then it was for nothing. I liken it to the civil rights movement of the Roman Empire. That surely would not be for nothing.
But on another level, people do things all the time based on beliefs that may or may not be objectively real. As I said before, belief in a god (or gods) was the default reality of their day. They did it for their belief. Hard as it may be to conceive, it is possible—in fact, likely—that "belief" is its own thing and clearly doesn't need something "real" as a basis.
Samantha,
Firstly, once in a while a technical glitch has occurred at this site and information is lost. This is not the first time, and I assure you it is not exclusively on this sort of subject. It happens. No conspiracy. Erich likes a lively discussion.
Secondly, you write:—”Where does truth come from. Can we even believe anymore what comes from this web site? I am sure of one truth, that I can walk away from this web site today is that we live in a fallen world and it is corrupt with half truths.”
It seems to mean you are talking yourself out of skepticism and critical analysis. You're sure of one truth. There is no “one truth” which is the difficult thing about this whole discourse. You see truth as one and the same with Fact and when certain Facts seem to contradict Truth, they must evidently be wrong. Truth, however, is a process—a continual encounter with and experience of recognition. Facts bolster truth, but they are not the same thing. (Which actually makes Pilate’s little exchange with Jesus philosophically fascinating, especially given the response, but anyway…)
To imagine that a manmade artifact—like the Bible— could possibly encompass the possibilities latent in a concept like “God” is absurd. And rather pointless. What you’re reading there is a story—or, more precisely, a set of stories—the purpose of which is give examples of encounters with a phenomenon that is by definition indescribable and also to present the history of a specific culture and how it responded to those encounters. Some of the history is accurate, some of it is bent through a political lens, some of it (parables) is fiction. The theme overlying the whole thing is a conceptual construct offering a view of what might be at work.
It does not contain the thing it attempts to convey.
Any halfway serious study of the universe would lead one quite quickly to a view that the idea of a god which could be in any way involved with the petty problems, soap operas, and clannish disputes and wars described in the books of the Bible would be the equivalent of a couch potato addicted to bad television. A deity that could make all this, the way it is built, just couldn’t care.
How do I know this? Because it bores me and by definition I would be so much less than a god.
What the Bible is used for mostly has less to do with any revelation of what god might be than it has to do with hammering people into approved behavior patterns. The Bible is used to condemn all the stuff people don’t like about other people. It is a tool for control.
Control? Ask yourself why a god of quarks, muons, bosons, pulsars, and tachyons be in the least interested in how carbon-based organisms use their genitals. To me, this is ludicrous. All I hear when people start preaching the Bible at me is condemnation of behaviors that offend THEM. But they claim it offends god. Psych 101, this is projection. We can peruse Scripture and find whatever we want to condemn anything we care to.
Which is ironic. Since Jesus was supposedly all about tolerance, about not judging, about treating each other for how we are.
It is not good thinking to take the examples we offer and then say, “well, fine, there’s that, but what else do you have?” when you yourself claim to rely entirely on one document and seem unwilling to look at it critically. Bart Ehrman is not the only one. There are many others—he has just managed to write for a general audience. Get a couple of his books and look at his references and you’ll find the rest.
But I—and others—have already done this work on our own. We’re willing to offer examples and point directions, but you need to go look for yourself and do so with an open mind.
But my reading of the passage I quoted above suggests that you aren’t willing to do that and you’re just looking for excuses to shoot it all down.
That’s arguing in bad faith.
[Admin Note: cross-posted from http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/08/12/larry… ]
Tony Coyle says" Christians, on the other hand, have a very specific claim regarding the bible: it the the written word of god. This is an extraordinary claim, that is not made for any other book. To support such a claim, you must be able to provide some extraordinary evidence, and that evidence must, by definition, not be contained in the book you claim to be divine!
Tony ,
Hello, I am going to make this as plain as I can for you. The extraordinary evidence you seek is in everyone who has a life that was changed after they had faith in Jesus and believed and repented of their sins . This evidence is not contained in the Bible like you insisted in your "must list" above in your response to Samantha. It is lived out in the lives of the peolpe today. The thief, the wife abuser, the sex offender, the prisoner who asked for forgiveness in jail, the drug attic, the pornography attick, the liar, the adulterer, the murderer, the mockers, and yes, even the proud.
There are thousands and ten thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives changed because they got tired of the life they were living and did something about it. This is the evidence that you seek. By your own definition you must then accept this as fact. If only you would listen to the individuals around you and not your own understanding. These testimonies of all people who were changed is just like the eye witnesses in the court room. If their is a credible witness the crime is solved. Are you calling all these witnesses over 2 thousand years liars?
Your ignorance is compounded every time you type a response back trying to disclaim the Bible and Jesus. The words in that book have power. I gave you my testimony the other day. Look it up again and read it. Or do you choose to overlook hard evidence?
Samantha's Husband writes:—"The extraordinary evidence you seek is in everyone who has a life that was changed after they had faith in Jesus and believed and repented of their sins ."
That's not proof.
If one person decides one day that granite is exactly the same as marshmallow, one would say he is deluded. If a hundred become convinced of this, we say it is a fad. At a few thousand, fad begins to become a trend. At a few hundred thousand to a million, we're looking at a movement. We might, when we reach ten million or more, regard it as a religion.
That in no way proves that granite is exactly the same as marshmallow—it only proves that people can be persuaded of anything when they refuse to use their brains and exercise some skepticism and reason.
Samantha's Husband writes:—"I gave you my testimony the other day. Look it up again and read it. Or do you choose to overlook hard evidence?"
I'm answering this is a separate post so as to make it clear what I mean.
That is not "hard evidence." That's personal, subjective. It is what you believe and belief does not validate reality all by itself. People believe all kinds of nonsense, fervently, that cannot be demonstrated as true with hard evidence.
It is, basically, a tautology. "I believe this is true because I believe it."
Proof and evidence must exist separate from belief.
So every time we ask you to give us evidence, to prove your thesis, and you give back the same exact answer—because I believe—we continue to ask the same, annoying question. Where is your evidence?
Atlantis is considered a real place by many people. There is even an ancient book that mentions it. Because many people believe it existed, does that constitute proof that it did? Of course not. What will prove it? If someone finds ancient ruins or artifacts at the bottom of the ocean. At least that will be a start.
If they did, however, would it be proof that it sank because the gods were angry with them? Of course not.
Which is why archaeological finds of Biblically-mentioned sites do not constitute proof of the existence of Yahweh. It only proves that people built cities in those places where they may well have believed in Yahweh. But belief is not evidence.
What's so difficult about this?
Mark: thanks for responding. My response is basically 'ditto'!
Regarding "What's so difficult about this?'.
I think it comes down to our amazing ability to concoct post-hoc reasoning that our brains pretend is actually based on evidence — unfortunately that's only true in the case of actual evidence. In the case of 'belief' based evidence it's simply based on the belief, hence the ability of people to believe contradictory things (such as the 2 or 3 PhD biologists who disbelieve evolution, because it goes against their a priori belief in creation).
Unfortunately, it appears that our ability to concoct 'reasoning' for our actions out of whole cloth is an innate human 'talent' (google-fu fails me at the moment, but there were a number of reports about a year ago indicating our 'cognitive cover up')
I understand that this is going nowhere. We will just have to wait and see, time will tell. I believe that it was Tony who said there are no certainties. But there is one certainly that is undisputed. We are all going to die one day. I don't know where you all are going, but I do know where I am going. And yes, I will pray for you all, even though it probably doesn't matter to you, it does to me.
Samantha
Don't you think it smacks a little of hubris to be so certain of where you're going after you die?
And I do know where I'm going…
When I die, I will go nowhere. There is nothing except wishful thinking to suggest otherwise (despite what you may have read in the NT portion of your favorite book)
Science may bring us some alternatives to ultimate dissolution: If uploads are available, I will have my curmugeonly consciousness crammed into a nice mobile computing platform – so I can hang around and have more fun and conversation.
Otherwise, I may have myself pressed into a vinyl recording (http://www.andvinyly.com/) of something really inane, to be played on my birthday, so that others can have some fun and conversation.
Neurologist Robert A. Burton has written a book on feelings of certainty that bears on this discussion: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not.
Are feelings of certainty reliable substitutes for careful fact-finding and reasoning, or are such feeling-based arguments actually something much less impressive? Based on his research, Burton concludes that feelings of certainty are not legitimate substitutes for careful fact-finding and reasoning. The feeling of certainty is an involuntary sensation akin to an emotion.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/10/12/what-…
Samantha:
You've disparaged Bart Ehrman's work without showing any hint that you have read anything he's written. That's not keeping an open mind. In no way am I suggesting that you need to "trust" Bart Ehrman. Simply read along and double-check the Bible passages that he cites along the way (that's what I have done). It's too bad you don't have the courage to read any of Bart Ehrman's works, including latest book, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know about Them) (2010). If you had the courage, and you actually read Ehrman's book along with your Bible, side-by-side, you would see some striking things that preachers will almost never tell you, certainly not in church, where it would be inconvenient to admit that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
For instance, in Mark, we learn that Pontius Pilate found Jesus guilty and condemned him to death by crucifixion. Mark also tells us that Jesus was crucified that same day at nine o'clock in the morning of the day of Passover. Now compare this to the Gospel according to John (written 25 years after Mark's gospel), which indicates that Jesus died a day earlier, on the day of preparation for the Passover, and that Jesus died in the afternoon.
Both of these things cannot be true. This is merely one of hundreds of contradictions easily available to anyone who wants to read the Gospels "horizontally" (comparing what each gospel "author" had to say about particular topics.
Bart Ehrman is a professor of religious studies, but he is also an historian who relies upon specific Bible passages when writing his books. One might wonder why it is even interesting to note that an historian would rely upon the written record. This is interesting because Ehrman's historical-critical approach is an attempt to determine "what the biblical writings meant in their original historical context." (Page 4). It is Ehrman's position that "The Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren't any, even when they are staring you in the face." Did Peter deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed twice (as we learned in Mark's Gospel)? Or did he do this before the cock crowed once (as we learn in Matthew). When the women went to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus three days after his death, did they see a man (according to Mark), two men (according to Luke), or an angel (according to Matthew)? Sometimes sharp consistencies show up within the same Gospel. Did Jesus performed his first miracle when he turned water into wine (according to John 2:11) or was this water into wine miracle something that occurred after Jesus performed many other miracles in Jerusalem (John 2:23), or was the water into wine miracle the second sign that Jesus did (John 4:54).
Ehrman writes that these inconsistencies are well known by all seminarians, but these seminarians "appear to forget all about it when it comes time for them to be pastors." When you get up in front of the congregation and preach, the inconsistencies disappear because they are inconvenient.
You seem amazed that anyone would question the doctrine of the Trinity. Well, if you had actually taken the time to read Ehrman (or many other writers who take biblical analysis seriously) you would know that there were bitter divisions in the early church centering around the doctrine of the Trinity. Was there one God, two gods, three gods, or many gods? Ehrman discusses the various positions of the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics, Patripassianism, modalism, Tertullianism, Arianism. Each of these groups had different views on the Old Testament claim that there was only one God versus the allegedly divinity of God and the elected appearance of the Holy Spirit. Yes, many churches currently hold that there are three persons in one God. However, relying on the same Bible passages that you rely on, there were bitter fights within the early church on this topic for hundreds of years. Were you aware of this? Do you care? Would you rather be comfortable in your beliefs or would you rather know the truth? If you had known the history of this dispute, you would not likely be so smug in your belief that it is "obvious" that your interpretation is the correct one. Rather, you would instead recognize that there is massive ambiguity in the concept of the Trinity, and that everyone weighing in on the topic has relied on the same Bible passages that you think supports only your position.
Ehrman states that "eventually the orthodox position was that of Athanasius." Here's that position: "there are three persons in the Godhead. They are distinct from each other. But each one is equally God. All three are eternal beings. They all are of the same substance." Ehrman then makes this comment:
"it is quite a development from anything found in the New Testament, where there is no explicit statement of anything of the sort. Not even in a document like the Gospel of John, where Jesus is thought of as divine, is there any discussion of three being one in substance. As you might expect, later scribes of the New Testament found this lack disturbing, and so in one place at least they inserted an explicit reference to the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8) the Trinity is a later Christian invention, which was based in the arguments of Athanasius and others, on passages of Scripture but which does not actually appear in any of the books of the New Testament. Within 300 years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable." (p. 260).
How does Ehrman know that scribes changed the gospel according to John? Because the early versions of the manuscripts do not contain this information–it only shows up in later manuscripts. Hence, the information was added, not original. Ehrman describes the changes in the manuscripts in his other bestseller, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman doesn't go up to the pulpit and thump the Bible, cherry picking his favorite passages in order to justify ideas in which he wants to believe. He sticks to the actual words of the manuscripts. When he was much younger, he was a fundamentalist who believe that the Bible was inerrant. When he was young, he had an agenda and he twisted the words of the Bible to fit his agenda. He learned to love the truth more than he loved clinging to his preconceived notions, however.
Hence, don't trust Bart Ehrman. Put him to the test. I challenge you to read Jesus Interrupted side-by-side with your favorite version of the Bible. Have the courage to look carefully at the actual words of the Bible and to ask yourself whether you have the courage to be humble and open-minded. It's easy to be smug when you don't give other viewpoints any meaningful consideration.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing…
BTW, you might want to read up on the "confirmation bias" and on dissociative states, and other cognitive phenomena that lead us to cling to what we know. The more you know about the human mind, the less you will be sure of the religious "truths" you were taught when you were a small child.
Erich:
Samantha demonstrates the common Christian version of Dunning-Kruger where a Christian will presume that their knowledge and interpretation is obviously better than a non-Christian, or that of a Christian from the wrong denomination.
I recognize how shallow my knowledge is in this area… I am merely a dabbler. I recognize how shallow my knowledge is in many areas (I know enough to know that I know very little). So I support whatever opinion I may have with research and reading and analysis. I don't simply take an authority at their word, since I know enough that there is no single authority – in anything.
I will change my opinion in the light of evidence. To do otherwise would be insanity. However many theists seem to be stuck in this mode, where they will reject evidence that runs counter to their belief. Their collective cognitive bias is astoundingly strong.