Few scholars have sparked as much debate in the field of biblical studies as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, historian, and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Known for his deep academic background and former evangelical Christian faith, Ehrman has become one of the most influential critics of traditional Christian narratives, particularly concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
In a series of bestselling books and public debates, Ehrman has challenged the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts and questioned the basis for belief in the resurrection. To many secular readers and skeptics, his work “destroys” the traditional story. To others, it represents a revisionist view that oversteps the boundaries of what history can and cannot say.
Let’s explore how Ehrman critically analyzes — and, some would argue, deconstructs — the traditional accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection.
Ehrman’s Background: From Belief to Critique
Bart Ehrman’s journey is critical to understanding his perspective. Once a devout evangelical Christian, he attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, and later earned his Ph.D. at Princeton Theological Seminary. There, under the mentorship of renowned scholars like Bruce Metzger, he became an expert in textual criticism — the discipline of studying manuscript variations to reconstruct the most original biblical texts.
Over time, Ehrman’s faith evolved. Disturbed by the inconsistencies in the New Testament manuscripts and the problem of human suffering, he moved from evangelicalism to agnosticism. Today, he identifies as a secular historian who studies the Bible as a historical and literary artifact, not as divinely inspired scripture.
The Crucifixion: Was It As the Gospels Say?
Ehrman does not deny that Jesus was crucified. In fact, he agrees with the majority of historians that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Roman authorities around 30 CE under Pontius Pilate. Where he departs from traditional views is in how the crucifixion is portrayed in the Gospels — and what it actually means.
Inconsistencies in the Gospel Accounts
Ehrman points out numerous contradictions among the four Gospels regarding the events of the crucifixion:
-
What did Jesus say on the cross?
-
In Mark and Matthew, he cries out in agony: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
-
In Luke, he says, “Father, forgive them” and “Into your hands I commit my spirit.”
-
In John, he declares triumphantly, “It is finished.”
-
Ehrman argues that these differing “last words” cannot all be historically accurate. Instead, they reflect theological agendas of the Gospel writers, not eyewitness testimony.
Theological Embellishment Over Time
Ehrman also believes that the Gospels show a progressive softening of Jesus’s suffering over time. For example:
-
In Mark (the earliest Gospel), Jesus is depicted as deeply distressed and abandoned.
-
In John (the latest Gospel), Jesus is composed, divine, and in control.
This evolution suggests, according to Ehrman, that the Gospel writers were shaping narratives to fit their theology, not reporting objective history.
The Resurrection: History or Faith?
It is on the resurrection — the cornerstone of Christian belief — that Ehrman is most skeptical.
Can Historians Verify a Miracle?
Ehrman often makes this fundamental point: Historians cannot affirm miracles because miracles are, by definition, violations of natural law and require faith, not historical methodology.
“The resurrection is a theological claim, not a historical one,” Ehrman says. “Historians can say whether people claimed to have seen Jesus. But whether he was actually raised from the dead — that is not something history can confirm.”
This doesn’t mean Ehrman is saying the resurrection didn’t happen. Rather, he argues that no historical method can verify such a supernatural event.
Paul and the Empty Tomb
Ehrman also scrutinizes Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings. Paul speaks of Jesus appearing to him and others, but never mentions the empty tomb — a central feature of the Gospels.
This leads Ehrman to question whether the empty tomb story was a later legend, not part of the original resurrection belief.
Additionally, Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15 of a “spiritual body” raises questions. Was Paul imagining a bodily resurrection, or a visionary/spiritual experience? Ehrman leans toward the latter.
Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts
Like the crucifixion, the resurrection narratives are filled with contradictions:
-
Who went to the tomb?
-
Was the stone already rolled away?
-
How many angels were there?
-
Who saw Jesus first, and where?
Ehrman sees these inconsistencies as evidence that the stories were not based on eyewitness reports, but rather evolved over time.
Legendary Development and Psychological Explanations
Ehrman proposes that early followers of Jesus may have genuinely believed he had appeared to them — but that doesn’t mean it happened. He draws parallels to:
-
Grief-induced visions: Common psychological phenomena where the bereaved “see” deceased loved ones.
-
Apocalyptic expectation: Many Jews at the time believed in resurrection and divine vindication. The disciples may have reinterpreted Jesus’s death in light of these beliefs.
In this view, the resurrection belief could have emerged as a natural psychological and theological development, not as a historical fact.
Faith vs. History
Ehrman makes it clear that he is not out to attack Christianity. He respects faith but insists on a clear distinction between what historians can know and what believers can trust.
“You can believe in the resurrection. But don’t pretend it’s a historically provable fact,” he often says.
In debates with Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona, Ehrman remains consistent: he critiques the historical method behind resurrection arguments, not the personal faith of believers.
Ehrman’s Impact and Critics
Bart Ehrman’s books — including Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted, and How Jesus Became God — have sold millions of copies and shaped the modern conversation about biblical history.
However, he has critics, even among secular scholars. Some argue that Ehrman downplays evidence supporting early Christian belief in a bodily resurrection. Others say he can be overly dismissive of oral tradition and memory.
Yet, even his detractors often acknowledge that Ehrman brings academic rigor and public accessibility to questions many prefer to avoid.
Final Thoughts: Does Ehrman “Destroy” the Crucifixion and Resurrection?
For traditional Christians, Bart Ehrman’s work may feel like a threat to sacred beliefs. For skeptics and seekers, he offers a liberating lens through which to explore the Bible historically rather than devotionally.
Whether or not he "destroys" the crucifixion and resurrection history depends on your perspective. From a historical-critical standpoint, Ehrman exposes serious problems with treating the Gospel narratives as literal history. From a faith-based standpoint, however, his critiques may challenge but not necessarily overturn deeply held convictions.
In the end, Ehrman invites both believers and non-believers to engage honestly with the text — to ask hard questions and to accept that sometimes, history and faith will lead us down different paths.
No comments:
Post a Comment