THOUGHTS ON BART EHRMAN’S ARTICLE ON HUFFINGTON POST

by  C Michael Patton  at Credo House blog  12 Comments

Someone turned my attention to an article in the Huffington Post by Bart Ehrman called “Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matters.” The essence of the article is an argument that the Bible contains lies. Most specifically, these lies surround the authorship of individual books of the Bible which claim to be written by one person and, in fact, are not.

This type of situation is called Pseudepigrapha, meaning “false writing.” It is when one author pens a work yet claims that it was written by someone else. Examples are pseudepigrapha are many. The Gospel of Thomas, The Letter of Peter to Paul, The Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene all qualify. There are dozens of these works both for the Old Testament and the New. Ehrman’s basic argument is nothing new or extraordinary. He claims that many of the New Testament books are pseudepigrapha. The leading contenders for such a designation are 2 Peter and six of the letters attributed to Paul, including the pastoral epistles.

The reasons for suspecting these works are varied and complex. However, according to Ehrman the presence of these works in the Bible demonstrate conclusively that the Bible is full of lies. After all, is it not a lie to write something claiming that it was written by someone else? What if I wrote this blog and under the author designation said it was from Bart Ehrman? It would be deceptive and discrediting. It would be an error of the worst kind: a lie. According to Ehrman, here is “the truth”:

“Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.”

One would get the impression as they read this article that Ehrman is informing his readers of something that others are either too ignorant or scared to reveal. But he is coming clean with the truth that virtually all scholars, except “the most rabid fundamentalist” have already concluded.

The article is by no means a scholarly or balanced argument. In fact, I don’t see any arguments at all, just assertions and appeals to the scholarly masses. And anyone who does not come to the same conclusion is pushed aside as rabid.

Unfortunately this is all too common as the “scholarship” of Ehrman steamrolls the unsuspecting public. Time and time again he presents himself as the knight in shinning armor who is finally making the truth known to the otherwise helpless sheep following their radical (or radically ignorant) pastors and teachers within conservative Christianity. After all, this issue is such a slam dunk that anyone who disagrees with Ehrman’s conclusions is, de facto, a “rabid fundamentalist.”

Here are a few of the problems I find in Ehrman’s article:

1. Ehrman does much to disqualify his voice when he starts the article with these words: ”Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors.” At this point, what chance does any alternative to Ehrman’s conclusions really have? Although I hate to invoke argumentative fallacies (they are just not classy and way overused), this is a classic case of “poisoning the well.” It is an attempt to discredit any alternatives by befriending them with the most unholy of associations. But, from the standpoint of any honest observer, this simply reveals the hand of emotionalism and/or timidity. When and if the arguments are not present (or that strong), just poison the well to achieve the same result. However, this only works with those who are not really seeking the truth.

2. Ehrman sees no need to present any sort of argument for his case. It is true that there many scholars who agree with him that many of the New Testament works are pseudepigrapha, and they have good reasons. But these reasons are hardly as compelling as Ehrman assumes. There is certainly a good case that can be made that each letter is authentic. I suggest picking up a copy of Donald Guthrie’s New Testament Introduction to see the pros and cons for each book in question. One can not easily place Guthrie as a “rabid fundamentalist.” At the very least, you will get a much clearer picture of the issues than Ehrman seeks to give.

3. The implications are overstated. Even if one were to grant that 2 Peter were pseudepigrapha (which, though I disagree, is the best candidate in my opinion), what does this do? According to Ehrman is means that the Bible contains lies. But this is not true. It would simply prove that 2 Peter was a lie. It is not scholarly in the least, in these type of arguments, to group the canon of Scripture or the New Testament into one book as if it had one author (as the title does: “Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matter”). Ironically, in such cases, skeptics like to assume the unity of the Bible which they would never assume in any other situation. The truth is that if 2 Peter and certain Pauline epistles were written by someone else, they alone would be deceptive. The rest of the books would be untouched.

4. The implications are not stated. Let us assume that the letters in question are not authentic. Let us grant Ehrman unsupported theses (just because we like the guy). What does this mean? The implications are rather unremarkable. No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is effected in the least. All the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity remain in tact, finding their support in the authentic books. I am not saying that these letters are of no value, I am simply saying that Ehrman continually fails to mention in all of his “pastoral revelations” to us poor unsuspecting people that the message of the Christian faith is largely unaffected.

Unfortunately, I believe that Ehrman’s style is much more “rabid” and far more “fundamentalist” than just about anyone out there these days, believer or unbeliever. But, more than that, I would say that his imbalance is the only “lie” that I can see clearly in this article. Ehrman seems to have sold out the respect and contribution that his level of scholarship could entertain, Christian or not. He is progressively trading in his respect  for some sort of crusade against Christianity which may be seeking to solve the bitterness problem that he has toward his fundamentalist upbringing. He is a far cry from his mentor Bruce Metzger and more and more resembles the lack of balance, meekness and poise of so many in the New Atheist camp. I think that a comment in the article from an atheist sums this up well:

“I would love to believe this article on it’s face. I am an Atheist, after all. But I would also love some references and citations for what are obviously some controversial claims. Otherwise it sounds a bit like Christian apologists.”

I suppose these days Bart Ehrman thinks his own musings are enough of a reference to support his claims.