About this Video

• Video Title: Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions
• Channel: Bart D. Ehrman
• Speakers: Bart D. Ehrman
• Duration: 00:59:19

Introduction

This video features Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, discussing the historical reliability of the Gospels. He argues that contradictions exist within the Gospels that cannot be plausibly reconciled, impacting their historical accuracy. Ehrman encourages viewers to engage in critical thinking and a horizontal reading of the Gospels to assess these contradictions for themselves.

Key Takeaways

• Contradictions vs. Differences: Ehrman distinguishes between minor differences in accounts (e.g., different details) and actual contradictions where two or more statements cannot simultaneously be true.
• Historical Reliability: A historically reliable account accurately reflects past events. Contradictory accounts, by definition, cannot both be historically reliable.
• Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Ehrman contrasts two approaches: assuming no contradictions exist versus objectively examining the text for inconsistencies. He advocates for the latter.
• Horizontal Reading: He promotes a horizontal reading method, comparing parallel passages across different Gospels to identify contradictions more easily.
• Examples of Contradictions: Ehrman provides several examples of apparent contradictions within the Gospels, including the death of Jairus' daughter, the genealogies of Jesus, the flight to Egypt, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. He argues that these contradictions undermine the Gospels' complete historical reliability.

Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, argues that the Gospels contain significant contradictions that cannot be plausibly reconciled, thereby undermining their complete historical reliability. He emphasizes the difference between minor variations and outright contradictions where two statements cannot be simultaneously true. Ehrman advocates for a "horizontal reading" of the Gospels—comparing parallel passages across different texts—to identify these contradictions.

He offers several examples:

• Jairus' Daughter: Mark portrays Jairus' daughter as not dead when he initially approaches Jesus, while Matthew depicts her as already deceased.
• Genealogies of Jesus: Matthew and Luke present significantly different genealogies for Jesus, making it impossible for both to be accurate. Ehrman suggests this is due to the lack of reliable genealogical records in ancient Jewish society.
• Flight to Egypt: Matthew describes the family's flight to Egypt and subsequent return to Nazareth, while Luke omits this entirely and depicts the family as residing in Nazareth.
• Temple Curtain: Mark describes the temple curtain tearing after Jesus' death, while Luke states it tore before.
• Post-Resurrection Appearances: Matthew places Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in Galilee, while Luke situates them in Jerusalem.

Ehrman's discussion focuses on identifying these contradictions; he does not discuss his own authorship of the New Testament in this video. He was not an author of any of the New Testament Gospels. His expertise lies in the study and critical analysis of existing New Testament texts.

Ehrman doesn't directly address the reliability of the authorship of the Gospels in this specific video. His focus is on the internal contradictions within the Gospel texts themselves, regardless of who wrote them. He points out discrepancies and inconsistencies within the narratives, arguing that these affect the historical reliability of the accounts, regardless of the authors' identities or intentions. The video's primary concern is the content of the Gospels, not the verification of their traditional attributions.

According to Bart Ehrman's argument in this video, the Gospels are not completely historically reliable. He bases this conclusion on the presence of contradictions within the texts that he believes cannot be plausibly reconciled. He argues that because some accounts directly contradict others, it is impossible for all of them to be accurate representations of past events. While he acknowledges that some information in the Gospels might be historically accurate, the existence of these contradictions undermines their overall reliability as completely factual historical documents.