Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 2 of 2

We will now continue and conclude considering Bart Ehrman’s millions and millions of variants.

Let us continue from the first segment and consider Ehrman as a teacher, as he:

is energetic and possessed of a gregarious personality that endears him to the student body…as he paces back and forth across the stage, Ehrman ruthlessly pounces on the anomalies…Ehrman reels them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition…“Most of the students have never heard anything like this in their lives,” says Ben White, a graduate student. “For a lot of them, it's very threatening.”1

Note the emotive and adrenaline spiked description. That “Most of the students have never heard anything like” is surely true for various reasons including 1) there are Christians who have lived all but cloistered lives and have never practiced the true and honest skepticism which the Bible enjoins2, 2) there are indifferent or rebellious students who take Ehrman’s words for it and also do not practice the skepticism which would challenge Ehrman’s views, 3) what they are hearing is not true.

Let us consider option 3 (the following combines statements by an interviewer with Ehrman’s):

in this Gospel, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem, he doesn't tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there's no last supper. “None of that is found in John!”

The crucifixion stories are different -- in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he's perfectly composed…

“In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,” he says, his voice urgent. “In John, you do.”

He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ's ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning.

Now, imagine all this and more being presented to you, a captive audience whose grades depend on it, by an energetic, endearing, ruthless, urgent, pouncer reeling them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition.

No wonder the New Atheist movement targets the college youth: they are naturally rebellious, have left home and are on their own, their libidos are on overdrive and along come the New Atheists, the Bart Ehrmans urging them to rebel against the authority of their parents and traditions, assist them in confusing rebellion against “religion” with rebellion against God and emphasize that traditional “religious” morality is oppressive so basically “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

No wonder that studies show that atheists are generally well “educated” as by the time they graduate college they have been through the atheist catechism numerous times. Every subject they study makes no reference to God, as that would be all but illegal, often if God is mentioned it is in order to condemn and confuse between God and “religion,” and the convenient side effect of treating others as the animals which they are told they are with liberty and fornication for all.

Let us momentarily wipe the stars from our eyes, let the adrenaline subside and actually skeptically consider the statements each in turn:
in this Gospel, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem, he doesn't tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there's no last supper. “None of that is found in John!”
That something is not found in one Gospel over another one amounts to nothing. Let us imagine that two authors write two books on tennis: one on how to play the actual game and the other describing and recommending the equipment and apparel that one will need in order to play tennis.
It is no refutation of the one over the other to state, “In one book the tennis player is described as wearing certain apparel and utilizing certain equipment; none of that is found in the other book!” or “From one book we can actually learn how to play the game; none of that is found in the other book!”
Would you really conclude from the one book that a person would purchase equipment and apparel and not play tennis or from the other that one would play tennis without a racket and disrobed?
That different authors emphasize different things as they write for different purposes and to different audiences is so very obvious, as it is done by every author (of fiction, non-fiction, books, novels, newspapers, websites, etc.) that one cannot help but discern emotive excuses for rebellion and rejection.

John’s emphasis is Jesus eternality as deity and so he begins by stating, reminiscent of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Just because John does not mention where Jesus was born does not mean that in John’s gospel “Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem.”

Does “he doesn't tell any parables” mean that in John, Jesus does not say, “Hey guys, I am now going to tell you something that shall hereafter be categorized as ‘parable’?” Well, just in case, in John, Jesus makes parabolic statements: 3:8 (blowing wind), 3:29 (bridegroom’s friend), 4:35-38 (fields ripe for harvest), 5:19-20 (father and son), 8:35 (slave and the son), 10:1-5 (good shepherd), 11:9-10 (twelve hours of daylight), 12:24 (kernel of wheat), 12:35 (walking in the light), 14:2-4 (preparing a place), 15:1-8 (the vine and the branches), 16:20-24 (women in travail).

I suppose that it is true that in John “there's no last supper” unless you count the last supper that is found in John ch. 13,

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. And supper being ended…rose from supper…

The last one.

The crucifixion stories are different -- in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he's perfectly composed.
This is simply not so, this gives the impression of contradiction whereby Mark and John claim to describe the same time and place but one denotes that Jesus was terrified and the other perfectly composed. The fact is that while Mark more fully describes the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, John mentions that they went there and goes directly into a description of what happened when Judas (John ch. 18). Jesus was “terrified” before this as He anguished alone, then he became “perfectly composed” and then Judas and company arrived.

“In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,” he says, his voice urgent. “In John, you do.”
I wonder what he means by “trace”? I wrote an essay entitled Did Jesus Say “I am God”? - The Faulty Premise because some people seem to think that unless Jesus stated the word “I” followed by the word “am” followed by the word “God” (in 21st century North American English grammar, mind you) then He did not claim to be God when, in fact, He did claim to be God and was claimed to be God in very many ways.
For the interested reader I have just begun an entire series on God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine. Let us consider the claim that “In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace” not even a trace mind you “of Jesus being divine”:
Jesus is omnipresent in: Matthew 18:20, 28:20

Jesus is omnipotent in: Matthew 19:26 & Mark 10:27; Mark 4:39-40; Mark 11:13-14 & 20-21

Jesus is identified as God via doing things which only God could do in: Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 9:2-3, 6, 28:18; Mark 2:7, 10, 14:61-64; Luke 5:21, 24

For an example of the above; Jesus forgives sin in: Mark 2:5-11; Matthew 6:12 & Luke 11:14; 6:14-15, 9:2-3; Matthew 9:6 & Mark 2:10 & Luke 5:24; Matthew 26:28; Mark 2:7 & Luke 5:21, 7:48-49, 23:34

Jesus is worshipped, which pertains to God, in: Matthew 2:2, 9:18, 14:33, 20:20, 28:9, 17-18; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:51-52

Jesus is the Ruler of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth in: Matthew 25:31, 27:37 & John 19:12; Matthew 27:42; Mark 9:1

Jesus is said to be the judge of humanity as ruler in: Matthew 19:28, 25:31-34, 41, 46

And these purposefully restrict us to Matthew, Mark and Luke without citing the rest of the New Testament.

He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ's ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning.
This is simply not the case. The Gospel writer, the apostle John, states is that John the Baptist stated,

I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God (John 1:33-34).

From this point it is John the Baptist who identified Jesus for others and this was due to the very fact that everyone did not know from the beginning,

John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He…The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me’… (John ch. 1).

Much, much, much more could be said in responding to Bart Ehrman’s assertions. It is fascinating to note that there are people reading his works who would never even imagine reading anything on the subject of textual criticism from the other side. It is no wonder that it was his 19th book, published upon the shoulders of the New Atheist movement, which became a popular best seller and brought Ehrman fame, wealth and empty happiness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Further information:

Bart Ehrman debated Michael Licona twice; found here Is the Resurrection of Christ Provable? and here Can historians really prove Jesus rose from the dead?

Debate with James White Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?

James White review of Misquoting Jesus.

James White comments on Bart Ehrman’s appearance on The Infidel Guy’s radio show.

Plus an intreivew with Licona.

Bart Ehrman and Darrell Bock on National Geographic’s The Lost Gospel of Judas

John Warwick Montgomery responding to Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Ben Witherington considers Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted in a five part essay Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

William H. Willimon’s review Ehrman’s book God's Problem

Peter Williams critique of Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Also see Dillon Burroughs’ book, Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus and Timothy Paul Jones’, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's “Misquoting Jesus”:

1. 1. Neely Tucker, “The Book of Bart,” Washington Post March 5, 2006
2. 2. "'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD" (Isaiah 1:18), in the New Testament the Bereans are considered more noble (or more "fair minded") for double checking everything that Paul told them (Acts 17:11), Thomas asked for the evidence which the others had seen and had merely retold to him (John 20:24-30), Jesus stated, "Love the Lord your God with all your...mind. This is the first and greatest commandment" (Matthew 22:36-38).
   We are clearly called to discern, test, and judge, prophets, spirits and all things:
   “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1st Corinthians 14:29).
   One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “discerning of spirits” (1st Corinthians 12:10).
   “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1).
   “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).
   "you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly" (Deuteronomy 13:14).
   Etc., etc., etc.