Bart D. Ehrman: Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions

In the world of biblical scholarship, few figures are as influential—or as controversial—as Bart D. Ehrman. A former evangelical Christian turned agnostic, Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and historian whose work has challenged traditional views on the Bible’s accuracy and historical reliability. Among the many topics he has tackled in his prolific writing and teaching career, one of the most significant and often debated is the question: Are the Gospels historically reliable?

For Ehrman, a major obstacle to affirming their reliability lies in the presence of contradictions within the Gospel accounts. Through careful textual analysis, he argues that these inconsistencies are not minor discrepancies but serious challenges to the view that the Gospels are historically accurate narratives of Jesus’ life.

From Faith to Skepticism

To understand Ehrman’s critique of the Gospels, it’s helpful to know a bit about his background. Ehrman began his academic journey at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, institutions known for their conservative Christian theology. He initially believed in the inerrancy of Scripture—the idea that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms.

However, during his doctoral studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman began to wrestle with the complexities of the biblical texts, especially the New Testament. The more he examined the manuscripts, the historical context, and the literary features of the Gospels, the more he saw problems that could not be reconciled with the view that the Bible was divinely preserved in a literal sense. His transition from fundamentalist belief to agnostic scholarship is documented in several of his popular books, including Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted.

The Nature of the Gospels

One of Ehrman’s central points is that the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are not eyewitness accounts written shortly after the events they describe. Rather, they are theological narratives written decades after Jesus’ death by authors who were not present during his ministry.

According to mainstream scholarly consensus, which Ehrman echoes and popularizes, Mark was likely written around 70 CE, with Matthew and Luke following in the 80s or 90s, and John possibly even later. This means there was a significant gap—40 to 60 years—between Jesus’ life and the recording of his story in written form.

During this period, stories about Jesus were transmitted orally, often shaped by the needs, beliefs, and theological agendas of early Christian communities. Ehrman argues that this process of oral tradition, combined with the authors’ unique theological aims, helps explain why the Gospels sometimes contradict each other.

Examples of Contradictions

Ehrman often draws attention to specific contradictions between the Gospel accounts to support his case. Some of the most commonly cited examples include:

1. The Birth Narratives

• In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE), and the family flees to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre of infants.

• In Luke, Jesus is born during a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which occurred around 6 CE—approximately ten years after Herod’s death.

These timelines are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile, raising questions about the historical accuracy of either account.

2. The Resurrection Accounts

Each Gospel offers a different version of what happened at the empty tomb:

• Who went to the tomb? One woman (John), two women (Matthew), or three or more (Mark, Luke)?

• Was the stone already rolled away or not?

• Did they see one angel (Matthew, Mark) or two (Luke, John)?

• Did Jesus appear to the disciples immediately (Matthew) or much later (Luke, Acts)?

Ehrman argues that these are not minor variations, but conflicting accounts that challenge the idea of a single, coherent resurrection narrative.

3. Jesus’ Last Words

Each Gospel records different final words of Jesus:

• Mark and Matthew: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

• Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

• John: “It is finished.”

For Ehrman, this isn’t just poetic variation—it’s indicative of each Gospel author’s theological agenda and literary independence.

Why Contradictions Matter

Some apologists and theologians argue that contradictions in the Gospels are only apparent and can be harmonized. However, Ehrman contends that the effort to harmonize often leads to ignoring or distorting what each Gospel writer actually says. He believes the contradictions reflect genuine differences in how early Christians understood Jesus, his mission, and his message.

Ehrman also emphasizes that the presence of contradictions challenges the view that the Gospels are historical biographies in the modern sense. Instead, they should be read as theological reflections shaped by faith and community tradition—not as objective, journalistic reports.

Historical Core vs. Theological Overlay

While Ehrman is critical of the Gospels' historical reliability, he does not claim that they are entirely fictional. In his more scholarly works, like Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, he argues that a historical core can be extracted from the Gospel accounts using tools of historical-critical analysis.

He believes Jesus was a real, apocalyptic Jewish preacher who believed the end of the world was imminent—a view that aligns with certain sayings in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Mark 13). However, Ehrman contends that the theological overlay of the Gospels often obscures this historical figure, particularly in later texts like John, where Jesus is portrayed as a divine being from eternity.

Reactions and Criticisms

Ehrman’s work has sparked intense debate, especially among Christian apologists and theologians. Critics argue that he overstates the contradictions and underestimates the capacity of ancient writers to use literary and symbolic devices. Others accuse him of presenting a biased view that doesn't fairly represent alternative scholarly perspectives.

However, even some of his critics acknowledge that Ehrman has done a service by encouraging broader public engagement with the complexities of the New Testament. His accessible style and willingness to challenge assumptions have made him a key voice in contemporary discussions about faith, history, and Scripture.

Conclusion: A Challenge to Certainty

Bart D. Ehrman’s exploration of contradictions in the Gospels serves as a powerful challenge to traditional views of biblical reliability. For him, the inconsistencies are not merely interpretive puzzles but indicators of the complex, human, and evolving nature of the Gospel texts. While his conclusions are not universally accepted, they force readers to engage deeply with the texts and to consider what it means to claim that the Bible is historically "true."

Whether one agrees with Ehrman or not, his work invites a more nuanced and historically grounded approach to understanding the New Testament—an approach that resists easy answers but ultimately seeks a more informed and honest view of one of the most influential collections of writings in human history.