For many years now I have encountered Muslims who attack the Christian scriptures for either New Testament corruption, forgery, Historical Jesus scholarship, contradictions, authorship etc.
For the people reading who do not know who Dr. Ehrman is, he is a lecturer in Religious Studies at North Carolina Chapel Hill. He is well known in Biblical Scholarship, as specializing in textual criticism. However, he has also deviated into other fields such as historical Jesus scholarship and the even authorship of the gospels. Dr. Ehrman graduated from Moody bible college (BA), Wheaton College (MSc), Princeston (PHD). He is famous for his attacks against the New Testament with works such as Jesus Interupted, Forge, Didymus the blind and the text of the gospels, Lost Christianities and his most famous Misquoting Jesus.
Due to Dr. Ehrman's attacks on the gospels it is seen as ammunition for the Muslim to attack the Christian scriptures. However, it is not that easy, as Dr. Ehrman is not a Muslim and does not hold to the position of Muslims, as he recently said in a recent youtube clip for his promotion of his book Did Jesus exist? he says that the day he studies the Quaranic Jesus is the day he declares his life invaluable. The short clip can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUSaKDMKJg.
So why do Muslims use Bart Ehrman? Basically through my experience of talking with Muslims they fail the first premise I base my arguments, which is consistency. Muslims pick and choose different parts of Dr. Ehrmans work to attack Christians without having valid evidence for the arguments he has that agree with Christians, which is what I will be showing in this blog.
Muslims will point to Bart's book Misquoting Jesus as their defense for biblical corruption, which is true and he also goes onto to say we do not know what the originals originally said, which was seen as a dangerous road from his Tutor at Princeston Dr. Bruce Metzger. They will use Bart's argument that there are over 400,000 variants in the New Testament without actually applying it in context that virtually 99% of these variants are spelling mistakes. I will not go into too much detail to refute the arguments but to just show that Muslims are cherry picking. Bart was confronted in a radio show where he was asked by the radio host " so what do you think the gospels originally said if they are so corrupt?" Bart replies saying " well what do you mean? I mean they pretty much said what we have today. The thing is Bart focuses on that 2%, which has no affect on doctrine of scripture as his analysis that we do not know what the gospels originally said and that it is corrupt. He is not saying everything is corrupt, which he states in his academic work and his book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which he wrote with Bruce Metzger. Another reason to believe this, is the fact he believes certain sayings of Jesus found in the gospels came from the lips of Jesus, which would then have to be originally written in the gospels for him to make this argument.
Muslims will also allude to the fact Bart always says we do not know who wrote the gospels and that they were not eye witnesses. Even though Bauckham and Hengel have shown amazing work on this, as stated I am not going to go into too much detail on who wrote them. What I will argue is Muslims again either fail to see his inconsistencies or choose not to use them. For example Bart argues we do not know who wrote the gospels. However, he also argues we do not have the autographs of the gospels (originals), which is true. However, what is an autograph? when the author signs his work, so unless they did not sign there work with their name, then yes its anonymous. So what option does the Muslim take? do they Cherry pick or realize Barts contradiction within his own arguments.
Muslims will also use his book Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet as their source for Jesus being just a prophet. Bart believes Jesus was just a prophet and never claimed to be God in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), but only the Gospel of John, which he believes to be unhistorical and based on theology. He believes Marks gospel being the earliest has more historical information on the historical Jesus. However, even though it can be argued Jesus does claim divinity in all gospels, Muslims fail to understand or just use inconsistent argumentation to what type of prophet Dr. Ehrman believes Jesus is. He believes he is an Apocalyptic Prophet; that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God would come in the his generation (not life) but within the first century, which obviously Muslims would not believe, as they believe Jesus will come again before the day of Judgement.
Bart reasons that unless Paul knew James there would be no reason for him to say this, as it is an indirect quote, which is what historians look for. Now if Paul knew James, surely they had a similar point of view on Jesus? meaning Jesus being divine would also come into the package. Even though Bart may not agree with me on the part og James and Paul sharing same or similar views on Jesus, his argument can be found on this youtube clip
Muslims have failed or chose not to establish the arguments the Bart uses that contradicts Islam .e.g. he remarks
Muslims deny the the death and obviously burial of Jesus (Surah 4 aya 157) yet predominantly use Dr. Ehrman as their hero for Islam. More can be said on Bart's views that disagree with the Quaran Jesus and Muslims view point. However, it can be seen that Muslims are being inconsistent when uing Bart as there source without comparing it to their own belief. There are answers to the claims made Bart and Muslims. I advise Christians and no Christians to read the works of Dan Wallace on the reliability of the new testament (textual critisism), Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the eye witnesses, Craig Evans book Fabicating Jesus, Bruce Metzger's booksThe Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration and The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997). Michael Kruger's book the Heresy of orthodoxy. F F Bruce the reliability of the New Testament. Martin Hengel's work Judaism and Hellenism : Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 1st English ed. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974. N T wright's book The Victory of God. Simon Gathercole: The Pre Existent Son. Timothy Johnson: The Real Jesus. The Historical Jesus and Christology: Thomas Rausch. Wilhelm Schneemelcher: New Testament Apocrypha. D A Carson The gospel of John. Mike Licona: The case for the Resurrection of Jesus. William Lane Craig: The Son Rises, Onguard and Natural Theology. Jame D G Dunn: Jesus Remembered. For an easy read and a starter Lee Stroble's Case for Christ.
For the people reading who do not know who Dr. Ehrman is, he is a lecturer in Religious Studies at North Carolina Chapel Hill. He is well known in Biblical Scholarship, as specializing in textual criticism. However, he has also deviated into other fields such as historical Jesus scholarship and the even authorship of the gospels. Dr. Ehrman graduated from Moody bible college (BA), Wheaton College (MSc), Princeston (PHD). He is famous for his attacks against the New Testament with works such as Jesus Interupted, Forge, Didymus the blind and the text of the gospels, Lost Christianities and his most famous Misquoting Jesus.
Due to Dr. Ehrman's attacks on the gospels it is seen as ammunition for the Muslim to attack the Christian scriptures. However, it is not that easy, as Dr. Ehrman is not a Muslim and does not hold to the position of Muslims, as he recently said in a recent youtube clip for his promotion of his book Did Jesus exist? he says that the day he studies the Quaranic Jesus is the day he declares his life invaluable. The short clip can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUSaKDMKJg.
So why do Muslims use Bart Ehrman? Basically through my experience of talking with Muslims they fail the first premise I base my arguments, which is consistency. Muslims pick and choose different parts of Dr. Ehrmans work to attack Christians without having valid evidence for the arguments he has that agree with Christians, which is what I will be showing in this blog.
Muslims will point to Bart's book Misquoting Jesus as their defense for biblical corruption, which is true and he also goes onto to say we do not know what the originals originally said, which was seen as a dangerous road from his Tutor at Princeston Dr. Bruce Metzger. They will use Bart's argument that there are over 400,000 variants in the New Testament without actually applying it in context that virtually 99% of these variants are spelling mistakes. I will not go into too much detail to refute the arguments but to just show that Muslims are cherry picking. Bart was confronted in a radio show where he was asked by the radio host " so what do you think the gospels originally said if they are so corrupt?" Bart replies saying " well what do you mean? I mean they pretty much said what we have today. The thing is Bart focuses on that 2%, which has no affect on doctrine of scripture as his analysis that we do not know what the gospels originally said and that it is corrupt. He is not saying everything is corrupt, which he states in his academic work and his book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which he wrote with Bruce Metzger. Another reason to believe this, is the fact he believes certain sayings of Jesus found in the gospels came from the lips of Jesus, which would then have to be originally written in the gospels for him to make this argument.
In Dr. Ehrman's debate with Dr. Wallace (is the original new testament lost?) he says the only way he will believe what the 100% original gospels said is if we posses 10 manuscripts of each gospel that date o within a week of the original. Now that it just radical skepticism, as we have nothing of the sort in ancient history. However, if a Muslim is to take Bart's approach to corruption of scripture, they would have to believe the original Quaran has been lost, as Muslims do not have the original Quaran, as there is no evidence and do not have 10 manuscripts that date to within a week of the original composed by Usman.
Muslims will also allude to the fact Bart always says we do not know who wrote the gospels and that they were not eye witnesses. Even though Bauckham and Hengel have shown amazing work on this, as stated I am not going to go into too much detail on who wrote them. What I will argue is Muslims again either fail to see his inconsistencies or choose not to use them. For example Bart argues we do not know who wrote the gospels. However, he also argues we do not have the autographs of the gospels (originals), which is true. However, what is an autograph? when the author signs his work, so unless they did not sign there work with their name, then yes its anonymous. So what option does the Muslim take? do they Cherry pick or realize Barts contradiction within his own arguments.
Muslims will also use his book Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet as their source for Jesus being just a prophet. Bart believes Jesus was just a prophet and never claimed to be God in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), but only the Gospel of John, which he believes to be unhistorical and based on theology. He believes Marks gospel being the earliest has more historical information on the historical Jesus. However, even though it can be argued Jesus does claim divinity in all gospels, Muslims fail to understand or just use inconsistent argumentation to what type of prophet Dr. Ehrman believes Jesus is. He believes he is an Apocalyptic Prophet; that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God would come in the his generation (not life) but within the first century, which obviously Muslims would not believe, as they believe Jesus will come again before the day of Judgement.
Muslims always attack Paul, why? because he preaches a different Jesus to them, even though he was a jew who knew Palestine and lived in the first century. However, Dr. ehrman recognises this and even argues that Paul knew Jesus brother James, which a Muslim would have to disagree with, as why would Paul know Jesus brother James? Bart argues that in Galatians 1 Paul indirectly quotes James
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
(Galatians 1:18-19 ESV)
Muslims have failed or chose not to establish the arguments the Bart uses that contradicts Islam .e.g. he remarks
What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?)claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church.
Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, [Oxford University Press US, 1999], p.229
God Bless
