Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus?

by Bart D. Ehrman, Craig A. Evans, Robert B. Stewart

This book features a learned and fascinating debate between two great Bible scholars about the New Testament as a reliable source on the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, debates Craig Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar, about the historical Jesus and what constitutes "history." Their interaction includes such compelling questions What are sound methods of historical investigation? What are reliable criteria for determining the authenticity of an ancient text? What roles do reason and inference play? And, of course, interpretation? Readers of this debate—regardless of their interpretive inclinations and biases—are sure to find some confirmation of their existing beliefs, but they will surely also find an honest and well-informed challenge to the way they think about the historical Jesus.

The result? A more open, better informed, and questioning mind, which is better prepared for discovering both truth and contrivance. The debate between Ehrman and Evans along with Stewart's introductory framework make this book an excellent primer to the study of the historical Jesus, and readers will come away with a deeper appreciation for the ongoing quest for the historical Jesus.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Nonfiction

114 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 22, 2020

About the author

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Reviews

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting discussion, but after having read a few of Ehrman's books I knew what to expect from him. Generally speaking, I'm a fan of his work and while this was enjoyable I didn't find that he supported his arguments very well. I found Evans' arguments stronger, but it's hard to know when reading (or listening to) theological debates if your pre-existing opinions are tainting your interpretation. I consider myself an open-minded Christian and have studied scripture in secular settings, but I don't think anyone is nearly as open-minded as they like to think they are.

To conclude my mini-review, the introduction and the post-debate sections by Stewart were very well written. I had never heard of him before, but I'll be on the look-out for more of his work when I'm perusing Amazon's kindle store.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A FRANK AND ILLUMINATING DIALOGUE ON AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

Bart Denton Ehrman is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Craig A. Evans is Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University in Texas. This book is a transcript of the dialogue between these two men at the 2011 Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum.

Editor Robert B. Stewart wrote in his Introduction to this 2020 book, “The debate that is recorded … in this book features two major New Testament scholars arguing for their own positions on a question that they both agree matters… Readers will not … points of agreement between Ehrman and Evans as well as numerous points of disagreement. Truth is not determined by scoring a debate. But hearing from those with whom one disagrees often sharpens one’s thinking on an issue.” (Pg. 19-20)

Ehrman says in his opening statement, “Another way to read the Bible … is to read it horizontally rather than vertically… The way it works is this: you read a story in one of the Gospels, and then you read the same story in another Gospel. Then you compare the stories… When you read the Bible in that way… you begin to find mistakes as you compare what one Gospel says about Jesus with what another Gospel says … in the same story.” (Pg. 24)

He continues, “in Mark 5:21-43 is the famous story of Jesus healing Jairus’s daughter… The Gospel of Matthew has the same story [9:18-26]… in Mark’s Gospel she was sick but hadn’t died yet, and because Jesus was delayed, she died in the interim. But in Matthew’s Gospel she is dead before Jairus even comes to Jesus. Well, which is it?... They can't both be right: the girl was either dead before Jairus came to Jesus, or she died while Jairus was talking to Jesus… Somebody has changed the story. If they changed the story in little ways, how do you know they didn’t change it in big ways?” (Pg. 25-26)

He recounts that at the Last Supper, “[Jesus] tells Peter, according to … Matthew [26:34], ‘Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.’ … in the Gospel of Mark [14:30], Jesus tells Peter, ‘Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.’ Well, which is it? … When I was at Moody Bible Institute, I bought a book that explained little differences like this… called ‘The Life of Christ in Stereo’… The author took the four Gospels and spliced them all together… His solution was that Peter denies Jesus SIX times: three times before the cock crows, and three times before the cock crows twice. Well, that’s an interesting solution. But to create the solution, the author of the book actually wrote his own gospel, different from the four… I should point out… [that Peter] denies him to different people in the different Gospels. What’s that all about? It’s about somebody changing the story.” (Pg. 27)

He goes on, “in the Gospel of Luke, we have a quite interesting account of how it is that Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem. Now in this case … we are dealing with something that I think you would probably want to call a historical implausibility… This is a census when … everybody in the world had to register for it… Joseph goes to Bethlehem because he is descended from David. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph… So, you mean everybody in the Roman Empire is returning to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier?... can you imagine the entire Roman Empire doing this? What is odd is that it’s not mentioned in any other ancient historical source… Why does Luke say it then? Because Luke knows full well that Jesus has to be born in Bethlehem, but he came from Nazareth. Well, if he came from Nazareth how did he get born in Bethlehem? Well, you see there was this census, and everybody had to go and register. So he tells a story. Not only is the story implausible, but the story also seems to contradict the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew doesn’t say anything about a census; Matthew indicates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and there is no word about his parents having come from anywhere else.” (Pg. 29)

He notes, “Then there are the resurrection narratives… What happened at the resurrection? It depends on which account you read. Who went to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene by herself, or was it Mary … with other women? If with other women, which other women?... Was the stone in front of the tomb or was it already rolled away?... Did they see a man there? Did they see two men there? Or did they see an angel there?... Are the women told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, or are they told to tell the disciples that Jesus will appear to them, as he SAID, in Galilee?... Do the women tell anybody? Mark says no; Matthew says yes. Are the disciples supposed to go to Galilee, or are they supposed to stay in Jerusalem?... In Luke, it’s quite explicit that they don’t leave Jerusalem; they stay there until the Day of Pentecost. But not according to Matthew: in Matthew they go to Galilee right away.” (Pg. 31)

He summarizes, “What people have done is that they have taken Mark and they have taken Luke and they have smashed them together into one big gospel. So that Jesus says and does everything in both accounts… If you do that, you … have written your own gospel… which is not like any of the four… you are saying that you should not pay attention precisely to what Mark has to say… what Luke has to say, you should pay attention to what YOU have to say… You have robbed each author of his own authorial integrity…” (Pg. 33)

Evans begins by pointing out the textual integrity of the New Testament documents. He adds, “The New Testament Gospels exhibit a great deal of verisimilitude. They speak of real people… and real events. They refer to real places…. Jesus’ engagement with his contemporaries, both supporters and opponents, reflects an understanding of Old Testament Scripture and theology current in pre-70 Jewish Palestine.” (Pg. 44)

He acknowledges, “Some of these discrepancies are … indeed real… Most scholars are not troubled by these discrepancies, recognizing several factors involved… differences are often indicators of interpretive and theological nuances that provide clues as the respective evangelists’ strategies and purposes for writing… it wasn’t only the evangelists who edited the teachings and stories of Jesus. So did Jesus’ earliest followers long before the Gospels were written. Gospel scholars are convinced that the tradition inherited by the evangelists had been edited to one degree or another… the earliest recitation of the words and deeds of Jesus was not static or frozen; it was a living, adaptable tradition.” (Pg. 47-48)

He continues, “The stories and teachings of Jesus have been edited, contextualized in ways that lead to clarity. The teaching of Jesus has been applied in new ways and new insights as new questions and problems arose. All of this reflects the way Jesus taught his disciples… The disciples were not tape recorders. They were disciples, trained to understand the teaching of Jesus, not simply repeat it word for word. They were trained to apply it as they gave leadership to the following of Jesus… that in time became known as the Church.” (Pg. 51-52)

In Ehrman’s response, he says, “Just because a source contains verisimilitude doesn’t mean that it can be trusted. We are interested in knowing if what the New Testament says about the historical Jesus is accurate or not. The answer is no. I was especially struck by the fact that Craig agrees with me… The New Testament is filled with discrepancies. If you have two accounts of what Jesus did and they contradict each other, they cannot both be historically accurate…. And the fact is that the Gospels contradict one another up and down the line.” (Pg. 55)

He also points out, “The Gospel of John portrays Jesus very differently from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Why? Because it was written much later by somebody who didn’t have access to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says things about himself that he does not say in any of our earlier Gospels… Jesus makes amazing claims about himself. And he does this only in the Gospel of John… Jesus’ opponents knew full well what he was saying; they picked up stones to stone him for claiming that he was equal with God…. according to the Gospel of John, and only according to the Gospel of John, this is Jesus’ claim… So let me ask a simple question: Why do you not find this teaching in Matthew, Mark, and Luke---the earlier Gospels?... I believe it’s … because Jesus said no such thing about himself… the Gospel of John… may be … extremely significant theologically, but it’s not historically accurate.” (Pg. 56-57)

Evans responds, “The Gospels are not … videotapes… It is an interpretative portrait… History is not … a videotape of word for word… Think about Peter’s Pentecost sermon. How long does it take to read? Two minutes?... That is a condensation… There could be some of the very words that Peter spoke---two or three in a row---but it’s a condensation… we need to understand how they taught, not as on tape recorders but as thinkers and appliers and adapters… We need to get out of the rigid thinking… You may as well take two portraits by a great painter and notice the differences in the colors; they can’t both be true. That’s an erroneous analogy.” (Pg. 59-60)

Ehrman concludes, “I am not saying that you should become an agnostic and throw out your Bibles. I am not saying that you should become an unbeliever…. If you accept the bible, you should accept it for what it is: a document of faith that is not a history book… It is filled with discrepancies. It is filled with stories that didn’t happen… Why? Because these Gospels … were books intended to declare and proclaim the good news of Jesus. That’s why they are Gospels.” (Pg. 62)

Evans concludes, “we can extract from these early sources what I think is an accurate and reasonable picture, incomplete to be sure, and in places uncertain, with discrepancies that frustrate us as modern historians. We wish we know which it was. Did this happen on Saturday, or did this happen on Friday? We don’t know… I acknowledge that. Those discrepancies are there. But do we find in these Gospels portraits of the historical Jesus? … I think the answer for that is ‘Yes, we do.’” (Pg. 64)

In the Q&A, Evans states, “I am aware of that book that Professor Ehrman referred to [by Johnston M. Cheney], ‘Life of Christ in Stereo.’ That is a silly attempt to harmonize the discrepancies, and it shows that something is really wrong with that approach.” (Pg. 66)

This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the Gospels, the ‘Historical Jesus,’ and Apologetics.

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

(8/10 stars)
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK, THE AUTHORS & THEIR CREDENTIALS: Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? is a collaboration between Bart D. Ehrman, Craig Evans, and Robert Stewart. The content of the book is mostly a transcript of a debate between Ehrman and Evans at the seventh Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in 2012, regarding whether or not we can consider the biblical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) to be accurate historical representations of the physical Jesus.

Both Ehrman and Evans are highly acclaimed Biblical scholars, professors, and authors with two very different responses to their studies: Ehrman is a confessed agnostic, which happened in the middle of his career, after he researched and finished his New York Times bestselling book God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer. Evans, however, is an evangelical Christian speaker and theologian who travels and speaks at colleges and churches internationally; he is, however, quick to state that he’s not a conservative Christian in this debate.

Both men have written and edited many books, and both have extensively studied language and the historical origins of Christianity, specifically focusing on the history of how the Bible was written and the accuracy of the gospels themselves. (And that is just a VERY small fraction of their studies and works, but it’s what pertains to this book; feel free to look them up to get a more in-depth idea of their other areas of expertise.)

Robert Stewart is a professor of Philosophy and Theology at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, and - more importantly to this specific debate - he’s the Greer-Heard Chair of Faith and Culture. He writes an informative (but definitely academic and slightly dry) introduction and ending essay to bookend the debate itself; the number of footnotes in this book, especially in Stewart’s sections, is alarming and indicates the vast amounts of material - somewhat contradictory in nature - that exists regarding this hot-button topic.

MY THOUGHTS: I am a recovering English major (ha), and a nerd for the history of language, religion, and Christianity in particular, so I was incredibly excited to get my hands on a copy of this book in Netgalley.
Full disclosure: I own six other books by Ehrman already, and none by Evans (merely because I’d never heard of him), so I FULLY expected to walk away from this debate on Ehrman’s side before I even started this book. However, I was committed to going in with an open mind, and I found myself more fascinated than I’d imagined I would be by the opposing side that was presented by Evans. In short (truer words were never spoken): Ehrman does not believe we can trust the picture painted of Jesus by the gospels as a historically accurate one; Evans does.

Let’s unpack why: Ehrman has made his career pointing out the many troubling parts of the Bible that contradict one another (see Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, and Why We Don’t Know About Them), and diving deeply into the meanings behind these contradictions. He’s very clear to point out that each gospel writer - not ACTUALLY disciples of Christ, but educated Greeks writing decades after the death of Jesus - has their own agenda and their own targeted audience, which I won’t go into because it’s a moot point in this specific book. Because of these clear agendas - and because of the very nature of these sometimes uncomfortably irrefutable and irreconcilable differences (including whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, whether it was a virgin birth, and whether he was horrified or accepting of his crucifixion) - Ehrman does not believe the gospels themselves can provide us with a reliably historical picture of who Jesus was as a person. He also points out how some of the historical “facts” provided in the gospels actually CANNOT be true, like Herod’s census, and were thus only included to further the author’s own narrative.

Evans, on the other hand, takes a slightly more accepting view of what qualifies as historical documentation. To him, the gospels meet several of the tests of historical authenticity (explained in detail in Stewart’s introduction), and to help his argument, he uses the fact that many biblical scholars from the past few centuries are willing to accept the gospels as historical documents. As Stewart points out in his intro, history is subjective and interpretive; what passes as historical one century will be debunked and replaced generations later. Evans points out that the gospels are written within an acceptably close timeframe to the life of Jesus and thus can be considered fairly historically accurate; there are multiple stories and events corroborated among them, and the differences can be chalked up to the cultural practices of teaching at the time. He introduces us to a concept called chreiai, where Greek students “in late antiquity” would memorize certain sayings by well-known teachers, writers, or philosophers. They were then encouraged to take that phrase, use the knowledge they gained regarding the subject, and make it their own - even changing and modifying it to prove their own point. To Evans, this explains why certain parables and stories are different among the synoptic gospels. (Although even Evans agrees to leave the gospel of John out of most of this debate, as it’s so out of left field.)

I won’t go into detail regarding the depths of their debate, or all of the ways in which they actually seem to agree - even though Evans may not necessarily see it that way, Ehrman does. However, I will say that your takeaway from this book will depend on your overall approach to the Bible, and how you view it. Are you looking for a historically accurate (dare I say, even factually infallible, you westernized evangelical Christians, you???), educational book about supposedly true-to-life people and events? Or do you view it more as a comprehensive collection of stories and experiences meant to teach and provide guidelines for a more fulfilling, spiritually-rich life? Neither Evans nor Ehrman may change your views completely, but you’ll walk away with more of an appreciation for both sides of this argument.

And to be fair, there are some validities that can be found within both arguments. Evans gives us a good overview of what historians actually look for when verifying reliable, hopefully accurate sources; logically speaking, it’s true that multiple accounts corroborating certain events lend credence to the probability that those events actually happened. As he points out, we don’t have videotapes from the time of Jesus, or Caesar, or Napoleon; all we have are multiple accounts that we can parse and examine closely, and use to construct a reasonably reliable narrative - especially when combined with our established archaeological and anthropological knowledge of the cultural, societal, and religious norms of the day.

However, you cannot discount Ehrman’s point that these accounts are gospels, not textbooks or biographies (just like the New Testament letters were correspondence sent directly to certain communities with unique challenges, and not general guidelines for Christian living for everyone - but that’s another story for another day). There is a purpose for these, and that purpose is to tell a carefully crafted set of stories to spread the “good news” of Jesus. Not only that, but each gospel writer had a specific audience in mind and a specific argument they wanted to make with their own portrayal of Jesus. And doesn’t this knowledge - combined with the knowledge that the authors of the synoptic gospels shared the same sources, including copying each other - affect how literally we can consider their versions of events?

While this book can be a bit dry and academic in its explanations of historicity and what scholars really think, the actual debate between Ehrman and Evans was a fascinating one. I’m very glad that it’s captured in writing for students of the historical Jesus to read and examine. It’s not often that we get to read a point-counterpoint argument where one biblical scholar is directly answering the questions posed by their “opponent,” and I fully appreciated both this cyclical back-and-forth discussion, and their ongoing arguments and answers to the difficult questions posed.

[Scott Carter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bart D. Ehrman, Craig A. Evans, and Robert B. Stewart, Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020). $25.00

Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? is a debate edited into a book. It opens, even before the table of content, with a quote from each of the contributors summarizing their perspectives. For more than a decade Bart Ehrman has repeated the narrative at the popular level that Scripture cannot be trusted historically. Some may consider it valuable theologically, but it has a variety of issues and between edits and changes, we simply cannot trust it. Craig Evans is on the other end of the spectrum. His argument is the New Testament is historically reliable and we can therefore trust what it says about the historical Jesus. Robert Stewart, not a member of the debate but acting as the editor, does hold to the historical reliability.

Stewart launches into an introduction about history and its object by taking up approximately 20 percent of the book. He gives a model of how to read the Gospels with four proposals. It is a generally helpful introduction and I believe it deserves attention. It is easy to come into a topic having such significance that I want to see the individual whom I disagree with weeping and repenting by the end of the debate with their argument utterly destroyed. Stewart’s introduction helps ground the reader and encourages them to be more cautious in their rush to judgment.

The pattern follows any standard moderated debate. Ehrman gives his opening statement followed by Evans. In this order, they give their responses and then conclusions. These consist of just over 40 pages. A Q&A section comes after and Stewart concludes with an overview of current Historical Jesus studies and additional reading options.

The arguments are nothing new and because the debate was in 2011, I will not take the time to interact with each item given as evidence or rebuttals. Ehrman begins with his standard story about his schooling before suggesting there are mistakes between the different gospel accounts. There are clearly people making up stories because the stories do not add up he argues. He summarizes by stating they are Gospels which are proclaiming good news, not histories.

Evans desires to answer four questions and addresses the validity of the New Testament by looking at the nature of the evidence, manuscripts, “realism or verisimilitude” nature of the Gospels, and the discrepancies.

Evans section has a variety of footnotes that could be received as preferential favor by Stewart. Stewart notes this at the beginning before Ehrman’s opening argument and that Evans supplied them as a part of his original favor. We are not given information whether Erhman did not have any or simply did not provide them, so I think it is unfair to presume Evans was given favorable treatment. As a side note, Ehrman has always written at the popular level and even the content of his material is more of an appeal to doubt than historical objections.

There is one matter I would like to address, though it has been done better elsewhere. Ehrman has a worldview problem. Just because we have a significant number of manuscripts doesn’t mean they are relevant to the truthfulness of the content. Just because the actual content fits well within its own timeframe doesn’t mean it is relevant for this historical truthfulness as it relates to Jesus. Ehrman is hyper-skeptical and resists any attempt at unifying the Gospel accounts, even if scholars are not in agreement they are actually contradictions.

Ehrman states, “They might be great stories. They might be theologically significant. But they can’t be historically accurate if they contradict one another.” (55) No Dr. Ehrman, they cannot be theologically significant if they are not historically accurate. They cannot be trusted, and therefore the very nature of Jesus and the claims of his work and person must be doubted if the NT cannot be trusted historically.

I received a complimentary digital copy of this book from the publisher for review purposes. My comments are independent and my own. Quotations could change in the finished book.

[Cliff · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I enjoyed the opportunity to hear these two scholars summarize their positions in a civil debate, I think this book has an audience problem. That is, who is the intended audience? It’s length (85 pages) and style (transcribed speeches rather than densely-footnoted academic writing) would indicate that serious novices in historical Jesus research are the intended audience. But Evans’ and Ehrman’s comments are too brief to provide a helpful introduction to the issue or their respective positions. And even in their brief comments, they slip into the jargon and assumptions of experts in the field. So, I would not assign this to undergraduates just entering the conversation. On the other hand, it’s too thin a volume to assign to graduate students. And, since the scholars are summarizing views they’ve published elsewhere, experts in the field won’t be interested in the book.

I’m thankful to be able to read an interesting live debate from 2011. But, other than that, I’m not sure how to use the book.

[Beth SHULAM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two leading Biblical scholars come together to debate the question of Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus.
Craig Evans and Bart Erhman debated this critical subject and this book is the transcript of the debate.
To have both a for (Evans) and against (Erhman) compiled together in one setting is a tremendous resource for the student of modern biblical scholarship.
Whatever position you might hold on the concept of the Historical Jesus, this book is an excellent introduction to the opposing views in current scholarship.

Excellent resource. Highly recommend it.

Thank you to Westminster John Knox press for the ARC copy to read and review.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brief book is an edited transcript of a debate between Ehrman and Evans. It was a short read, but full of thought-provoking, detailed explanations. It was surprising how much they agreed on things and weren’t attempting to have a cantankerous back and forth full of gotcha-moment attempts. Both men were thoughtful and measured in their statements and had a lot of respect for each other. A lot of time was spent on defining terms and with so much agreement in the end, the reader is left to decide how to look at all the information through the lens of faith and doubt.

Thanks to NetGalley and Westminster John Knox Press for an advanced copy of this book.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very handy resource for working with undergrads. The core of the book-a "debate" in several rounds between Ehrman (who denies the historical reliability of the Gospels) and Evans (who affirms it) is clear as can be. It's a very simple and very basic introduction, to be sure, but nonetheless helpful. The intro and appendix by Stewart would be less accessible to novices, and since they take up nearly half the book, I am torn about whether it is fair to require this book in classes, given its price.

[Jim B · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you've read other Ehrman books, there is nothing new for you here. Evans' arguments are well referenced (to mostly sympathetic sources) but utterly unconvincing. He admits that if the New Testament isn't historally accurate it would shake his faith, so he is hardly impartial. He manages to dodge most of Ehrman's main points in a way that makes me think he gave a mostly scripted performance rather than responding to them. The moderator also has a dog in the fight and wraps things up with the typical "more research is needed" plea of those on the wrong side of science.

[Liesl · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not really sure what was the point of making this conversation into a book. It barely scratches the surface and is better served in it's original debate form.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written glimpse into the topic at hand, with excellent intro and follow up from Bob Stewart.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a transcript of a debate held between Bible scholars. Each presents information regarding how the Bible was compiled (specifically the Gospels) and how "historically" accurate the information should be considered to be.

There is significant discussion about dating the Gospels, as well as how much it matters if the historical details are correct. They also discuss what it means to be "historically accurate" from the changing points of view of this definition over the years.

There is a significant Q & A Section as well as an extensive bibliography at the end of the book. The book itself is not very long; it took me about an hour to read.

Overall I was not given a specific answer; instead, I was given more food for thought about what it means to be a historical book, as well as how much do the details matter, or were they not the point of the Gospels that we (especially as modern conservatives or fundamentalists) often make them to be.

I received an ARC as a reviewer for NetGalley.