On Williams and Ehrman - After Economics
Menu
On Williams and Ehrman
Peter J Williams and Bart Ehrman recently conducted an exceptional discussion of the historicity of the gospels on the Unbelievable show. This article includes criticisms of either side.
Against the Christian side:
- I think Peter was overly reluctant against granting the possibility of contradictions or errors in the gospel. In the case of the death of Judas, for example, Peter states that the multiple accounts could both be correct and the he doesn’t feel much of a need to harmonize the interpretations.
- I agree with him that it’s possible the interpretations could be harmonized, but I also agree with Ehrman that particular harmonizations seem a bit implausible. Possible harmonizations:
- Judas hung himself near a cliff, the rope snapped, and he fell over the cliff headlong, tearing ripping his abdomen on the way.
- Judas hung himself and his dead body began decomposing. Natural decomposition or animals tore his abdomen over time and he fell headlong onto the ground at some point after he died.
- Peter could have taken a stronger, more intellectually honest stance by allowing that one or both versions might be incorrect. As J Warner Wallace points out, variation in the gospels confirms they are genuine testimonies from different eyewitnesses. In addition, the death of Judas is not essential scripture. Because there are no contradictions in essential theology, much of Ehrman’s argument would have rolled off of Peter like teflon with strategy.
- Peter was also weak because he stuck only with the four gospels when other scripture has early, authoritative authorship.
- Paul is an eyewitness and therefore arguably more authoritative than the author of Luke, and even secular scholars agree that Galatians was written before 55 CE and perhaps before 50 CE. 1 Corinthians is dated to 50 or 51 CE. These epistles are clear about man’s salvation through Christ’s divinity, in contrast to Ehrman’s indication that this in an innovation peculiar to the Gospel of John.
- Similarly, 1 and 2 Peter claim to be the work of an eyewitness, and they are generally considered to be written before 68 CE.
- I agree with him that it’s possible the interpretations could be harmonized, but I also agree with Ehrman that particular harmonizations seem a bit implausible. Possible harmonizations:
Against the secular side:
- Ehrman incorrectly argues that the gospels being correct in archaeological details fails to support them being correct in bigger claims.
- Clearly, if the gospels were incorrect in the details then we would not trust their larger claims.
- A pure agnostic would give the gospels equal chances of being true or false. Given that details are true strictly improves the bayesian probability of gospel truth.
- Many oral traditions have incorrect details, so that the gospel has an even stronger bayesian move towards expected truth because a pure agnostic who expects the gospels to comply with the oral tradition average would give it less than even odds.
- Ehrman incorrectly argues that that the New Testament fits the archetype of oral tradition.
- By Ehrman’s own estimation, Mark was written within 40 years of the crucifixion. J Warner Wallace dates Mark within 20 years of the crucifixion and I think it could be even less. I tweeted Ehrman to ask for specific arguments disputing these earlier dates. Oral traditions in general are much older than any of these dates suggest.
- Eyewitness testimony is not oral tradition. The idea of an oral tradition is that stories are communicated across generations. John is the oldest gospel, but it still purports to be an eyewitness testimony. It isn’t an oral tradition. Matthew, John, Paul, James, and Peter all claim to be eyewitnesses. The author of Revelation claims to be an eyewitness of his own vision, so again, intergenerational transfer doesn’t occur.
- Luke and Acts are perhaps the only works which are not direct eyewitness testimony. This gospel also does not count as oral tradition. It is written as a researched, orderly, and accurate report by a greek physician, based on eyewitness testimony, and intended for consumption as a literal, historical work.
- In Luke 1:3, Luke says that he "carefully investigated everything." This is much closer to a research report than an oral transmission, even if Luke’s investigation involved speaking to people. Today, researchers conduct user interviews and a number of ethnographic techniques. These are categorically different than the oral tradition of, say, Homer’s poetry.
- Interestingly, Ehrman doesn’t want to grant that Luke actually interviewed people. If Luke was carefully investigating things without speaking to people then oral tradition applies even less. He would seem to be conducting observational research or reading extant manuscripts.
Related
Add a Comment
- Facebook Comments
- Wordpress Comments (0)
Archives
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2010
Random Quote
- To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions…would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Thomas Jefferson
Tag Cloud
anarchism
anarchy
apologetics
atheism
Bible
bitcoin
budget
business
christian
Christianity
conservative
cryptocurrency
currency
david friedman
economics
economy
education
efficiency
evolution
finance
free market
god
Google
government
information
islam
john vandivier
law
libertarian
money
morality
News
Obama
philosophy
policy
politics
religion
Republican
research
science
statistics
technology
united states
vandivier
YouTube
© 2020 AfterEcon