Refuting Bart Ehrman?

Are there any good internet links or books that refute renowned Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman?

He says the majority of the new testament is forgeries and the Bible is not reliable in the slightest, that worries me because i have been reading Paul’s letters in my magnificat recently and in the back of my mind it is saying it is a waste of time readig them becuase they might be fake forgeries.

OK, so he’s a fake. Does that ease your mind?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/04/Interrupting-Ehrman-Critiquing-His-Latest-Polemic-Against-the-Faith.aspx
triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-bart-ehrman-keeps-losing-debates.html

The third link is especially good. Erhman does not seem to have the passion and understanding as one who truly believes what he says. Instead, it seems that because he deverted from the faith to agnosticism, that he must be able to refute every bit of Christianity, so he forces himself to believe what he says is true research. I own several of his works, including Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities, and the man certainly has some literary skills. Unfortunately what he’s writing is nothing more than objection after objection that was refuted one time or another throughout the history of the Church.

As for Paul’s letters, there are a few liberal scholars who say the literary style doesn’t match, therefore someone else must have written them. The Church, on the other hand, states that they have been held as authentic since the beginning, and since the letters were written over a period of 20 years or so, we can see the adaptation and evolution of Paul’s theology into a much more sophisticated and elaborate revelation of Christ.

Read the Epistles, savor every word and syllable, because they were written by the 13th Apostle of Christ, and the first Christian theologian.

1 Like

In the absence of any refutation, there is one thing that I would hold to - the Church. Christ said He will guide His Church into truth. It was the Church that established the canon not Ehrman.

If you can only believe that the Bible is the Word of God because of someone has successfully refuted Ehrman then that is not much of a faith. We have 2000 years of the Church with all her doctors and saints. We have the promise of the Holy Spirit. That is much more credible than Bart Ehrman.

The Bible is not a science book. The Bible is the Word of God and as such cannot be fully understood unless one approaches it in a spirit of humility. You will not get that from Ehrman.

Read the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel. Outstanding, and really refutes what Ehrman says.

1 Like

Thanks everyone. My faith has been hurt recently due to people like Ehrman, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Thank God i found this forum, it has helped me greatly as i think these atheists might have defeated me if it wasnt for the helpful people here!

[quote="Rascalking, post:5, topic:244837"]
Read the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel. Outstanding, and really refutes what Ehrman says.

[/quote]

I loved that book. I only wish Strobel would've gone further into his findings, but then again, that's what citations are for, I suppose.

[quote="dsmantz, post:7, topic:244837"]
I loved that book. I only wish Strobel would've gone further into his findings, but then again, that's what citations are for, I suppose.

[/quote]

I loved it as well. His books "Case for Faith", "Case for Christ" and "Case for the Real Jesus" are all fantastic.

Stop looking them up. You keep doing it, I can tell. Prayers for you.

[quote="PiousTemplar, post:9, topic:244837"]
Stop looking them up. You keep doing it, I can tell. Prayers for you.

[/quote]

Well, I'm not sure we can tell over the internet what people are doing. And even if we could, I go out of my way to read their stuff (in particular Ehrman and Dawkins) so I can better refute them.

[quote="Rascalking, post:10, topic:244837"]
Well, I'm not sure we can tell over the internet what people are doing. And even if we could, I go out of my way to read their stuff (in particular Ehrman and Dawkins) so I can better refute them.

[/quote]

That is good. But I think you probably are already well grounded on the refutation.

I would not advise this however, since we do not know how fragile someone's faith is.

I personally try to keep my reading to truly Catholic literature and wise people's refutation of heresies. This way I get to know what the heresy is all about but I have the antidote ready at hand.:)

Thanks for the tip on the "Case for the Real Jesus". I have just ordered the book.

[quote="benedictus2, post:11, topic:244837"]
That is good. But I think you probably are already well grounded on the refutation.

I would not advise this however, since we do not know how fragile someone's faith is.
.

[/quote]

That's true, didn't think about that.

Sorry.

And your welcome on the books idea. It's really fantastic, I reccomend all three of them. Read them all the time.

Pope Leo XIII spoke about guys like Bart in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, part of which I quote here:

“There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism,” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.”

[quote="catholicm17, post:6, topic:244837"]
Thanks everyone. My faith has been hurt recently due to people like Ehrman, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

[/quote]

I've never heard of Ehrman.

People like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris actually reinforce my Faith.

The consensus of contemporary Bible scholarship, Roman Catholic and Protestant, is this:

Paul almost certainly wrote Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians.

He probably wrote 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.

He may have written fragments of Philippians.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that he wrote Ephesians and Colossians.

2 Thessalonians is spurious.

He could not have written I and II Timothy and Titus unless he found a way of writing them from the grave.

Once again, this is the consensus. That there are dissenters is not in question.

Thanks everyone, i havent read any of their stuff in a few weeks, i shouldnt have done it in the past, as i am paying for it now! However it may strengthen my faith in the future.

Sometimes i think our faith is mad, 70000 people die a day, it would be much more logical for all of them to just die, rather than live on. Also sometimes i struggle to believe in Heaven and i remember Stephen Hawking saying it doesnt exist which worries me.

I will continue praying and try to renew my faith

YouTube - Bart Ehrman Top Bible Scholar Leaves Christianity

Bart Ehrman himself speaking........

Need any more be said?

[quote="catholicm17, post:6, topic:244837"]
Thanks everyone. My faith has been hurt recently due to people like Ehrman, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Thank God i found this forum, it has helped me greatly as i think these atheists might have defeated me if it wasnt for the helpful people here!

[/quote]

I can't speak to the other two, but Dawkins is a biologist: something which in no way qualifies him as a theologian. As a biologist, he knows that he's overstepping his boundaries of scientific discussion every time he delves into theology. Just remember every time you read Dawkin's work to say to yourself: this man is no more educated or qualified to an expert opinion on what he's discussing than I am.

As to Hitchens, I give him credit as a good debator, but that's it. He's abrasive and he knows how to throw out red herring (emotional) arguments which play off of common historical inaccuracies and common misperceptions of the church... and then he commonly crowds out his opponents' chances to respond. However, he's almost entirely bereft of understanding of history, willfully ignores the truth (which he is aware of) as regards the misconceptions he relies on as arguments, and is utterly destroyed when he comes up against seasoned and knowledgeable catholics like Dinesh D'Souza. (in fact, what that debate on youtube if you get a chance!).

These people PORTRAY themselves as experts, but as far as those two go, niether of them is a knowledgable or honest source of theological discussion.

A lot of things Bart Ehrman brings up scholars have known about for years. The best thing you can do is use worldcat to locate books on the common topics and learn the rest of the story. Bart is taking minor issues, giving them the most unflattering angle he can, while ignoring a lot of information. In fact, concerning the "forgeries" check out the catholic encylopedia at new advent dot org to look up each book he brings up. Also, you will find debates with him online by scholars of all shades.

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus
By: Timothy Paul Jones

The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace in Dialogue
Edited By: Robert B. Stewart

What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History
Ben Witherington III

Scholars Distort the Gospels
Craig A. Evans

If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, Audio CD
Randy Alcorn

It is a very bad move to depend on Hawking for answers to questions on faith.

As I said to someone earlier, God is Supernatural so it would be totally stupid for scientist to expect to prove His existence or otherwise from the natural. Being Supernatural, He is completely out of their purview. Nature can only give hints to His existence.

I would recommend reading Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth Volumes 1 and 2. In the intro he gives the shortcomings of the historico-critical method.

I would suggest getting books from the new apologists.

Scott Hahn’s book Answering the New Atheism is brilliant.

Thanks again everyone i will need to take a look at some of these books.

God Bless

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.