BART EHRMAN REPEATEDLY PROVES THAT SENSATIONALISM SELLS

Bart Ehrman, perhaps the most popular New Testament critic today and a self-confessed agnostic, heads the religion department at the University of North Carolina. His unrelenting criticism of Biblical Christianity has led several to confess that they had abandoned the faith because of him.

However, with only the scantiest evidences he happily challenges the consensus of the early church that Paul had written all of the 13 epistles ascribed to him. Of these 13, Ehrman regards six as pseudonymous forgeries – the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians.

On the basis of what evidence does he make his claim? Stylistic and theological! Let’s take the Book of Colossians as an example. Ehrman claims:

·       On the surface, it looks like Paul’s work, but not when you dig deeply into it. Colossians has a lot of words and phrases that are found in Ephesians as well. (Forged, 112)

However, since Ehrman also regards Ephesians as a forgery, Colossians is also to be regarded as a forgery. In his discussion of the Pastoral Epistles, which he also regards as “forgeries,” Ehrman makes the identical charge that their style doesn’t match that of the “genuine” Pauline Epistles. However, Ehrman then admits:

·       At the same time, probably not too much stock should be placed in mere numbers. Everyone, after all, uses different words on different occasions, and most of us have a richer stock of vocabulary than shows up in any given letter or set of letters we write.

Taking his confession at face value, let’s go on to the one alleged theological disagreement between Colossians and the “genuine” Epistles. Ehrman writes:

·       The author [of Colossians] indicates that Christians have already been “raised with Christ” when they were baptized, despite Paul’s insistence that the believers’ resurrection was future, not past (see Col. 2:12-13).

Ehrman also cites Col. 3:1 in this regards:

·       Believers in Christ were already above all human rules and regulations, because they were already raised with Christ in the heavenly places, experiencing some kind of mystical unity with Christ in the here and now. (112)

There are two problems with the contrast Ehrman is trying to establish between Colossians and the “genuine” Epistles:

1.     The “genuine” articles also affirm this “mystical unity with Christ in the here and now.”

2.     Colossians affirms a future resurrection, in contrast with Ehrman’s baseless claims.

First, “mystical unity with Christ in the here and now” is also found in the “genuine” Epistles:

·       Romans 6:4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

·       1 Corinthians 6:15-19: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!... But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him… Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

·       1 Corinthians 12:13: For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

·       Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.

·       Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Ehrman’s charge that his two groupings of the Pauline Epistles – one group forged, the other genuine - are in theological opposition is unsustainable, perhaps even deceptive. All of the above five verses teach that we enjoy a mystical union with Christ, even prior to His return.

Of course, our present mystical union with Christ in no way denies a future resurrection, when we will experience an even more profound union with our Savior.

Ehrman claims that Colossians teaches against a future resurrection in contrast to Paul, as quoted above:

·       Paul’s insistence that the believers’ resurrection was future, not past (see Col. 2:12-13).

However, the Book of Colossians also looks toward a future resurrection:

·       Colossians 1:5:  …because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel.

·       Colossians 1:27: To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Even though they were already mystically connected to Christ, they too looked forward to a future glory.)

·       Colossians 3:4: When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Yes, we already share in His glory, but not yet its fullness.)

·       Colossians 3:24: …knowing that from the Lord you will receive the [future] inheritance as your reward.

In view of the above, there is no theological discrepancy between Colossians and the Pauline Epistles, which Ehrman regards as genuine, and, therefore, there is no basis to charge that Colossians is a forgery.

However, shoddy, sensationalistic “scholarship” sells books, as Ehrman has seen with his many best-selling books.

Gospel Critics and Gospel Authenticity

Have you observed that the New Testament critics criticize the four Gospels when they are too similar – they claim that they borrowed from each other and therefore do not represent four independent accounts – but then they also criticize them because they are dissimilar (John vs. the Synoptics).

Jesus made a similar observation about the critics of His day. They criticized both John’s seriousness and Jesus’ merriment:

• “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  (Luke 7:33-34)

According to Jesus, these critics weren’t motivated by a desire to understand but rather by a hatred of the light.

We often find this same critical spirit underlying many disputes. Regarding Jesus’ belief about His own identity: Some critics allege that if Jesus believed He was the Messiah, He would have stated this fact more plainly. Meanwhile, other critics charge that the Gospels are overly plain, contrived by the early Greek-speaking church to bring Jesus’ words into conformity with their own messianic beliefs. Consequently, the Gospels are poor in terms of the actual words of Jesus and rich in the words and concepts of the early church. As a result, their contrived Jesus conveniently believed Himself to be both Messiah and God.

However, Orthodox Jewish scholar, David Klinghoffer, represents a more balanced position. In Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, he tries to justify the Jewish rejection of Jesus:

• “If he [Jesus] ever preached his messiahship openly, why did none of the Gospels record this? It stands to reason that he did not…[But] to reject Jesus, in his lifetime or after, was to condemn oneself as an unbeliever [according to the New Testament]. This hardly seems fair. You were supposed to acknowledge Jesus in a role he refused to publicly to claim?” (61)

Klinghoffer raises a fair point. Jesus’ teachings weren’t very explicit. Therefore, you can’t indict a man for gambling if there’s no law against it! Nor can you indict the Jews for rejecting Jesus!

Yet Klinghoffer does acknowledge that, privately, Jesus did acknowledge His messiah-ship. Here are the three examples Klinghoffer cited:

1.                  After Peter acknowledged that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus affirmed, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17)

2.                  After Caiaphas asked Jesus, “Are you then the Son of God?" Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am."  (Luke 22:70; Mat. 26:64; Mark 14:62)

3.                  After the Samaritan woman at the well mentioned the Messiah, Jesus responded, "I who speak to you am he." (John 4:26. To these acknowledgments—as opposed to directly preaching that He was the Messiah—can be added numerous other passages—John 5:16-28; John 8:28; John 10:24-38; Mark 13:26; 14:64)

Ironically, these passages and other equally cryptic passages demonstrate the authenticity of the Gospels:

1.                  The early church wouldn’t have concocted these subtle references of Jesus acknowledging His messiah-ship, as the skeptics allege regarding the Gospel accounts. Instead, the church would have fabricated verses where Jesus would have preached His divine identity loud and clear.

2.                  All four Gospels preserve equally cryptic expressions regarding Jesus’ self-disclosures, even while they record very different incidents and sermons. Why didn’t the enthusiasm of the Apostles commandeer their pen to craft more direct and compelling disclosures? Their concern for accurate reporting evidently trumped their enthusiasm and theological concerns!

3.                  In addition to this, the Gospels preserve the same cryptic, parabolic quality in Jesus’ teachings about other essential doctrines. He never taught clearly or exhaustively on the New Covenant – words that the early church would most assuredly have placed in His mouth. Only in the end did He explicitly refer to a New Covenant (Mat. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20. Although the Gospel of John doesn’t explicitly mention Jesus bringing the “New Covenant,” this concept may be conveyed in the idea that Jesus is the new Temple, suggesting that He is replacing the Old – John 1:14; 2:19)

Klinghoffer believes that Jesus’ indirect self disclosures reflect His uncertainty about His calling. However, in keeping with Jesus’ strategy, He often commanded those healed to keep the lid on the light. Also, He was hesitant about giving His opponents the quotable ammunition they wanted to bring charges and crucify Him before His time. By explicitly saying, “I am the Messiah,” or “I am God,” Jesus would have served Himself up into an eager Pharisaic platter.

Klinghoffer is wrong for another reason. His veiled manner of speech could not have been a cloak for uncertainty. He purposely talked in perplexing parables so that only His chosen ones would understand (Matthew 13:10-15). And they could only understand once Jesus explained the parables to them. The early church would never have invented such perplexing speech in order to support their theology.

And what about Klinghoffer’s claim that Jesus’ countrymen couldn’t be held accountable for something that He never clearly preached? Jesus explains it best:

• “If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:24)