For a supposed expert Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman does not seem to understand how to handle the contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible. This may be why he is known as a very good textual critic specifically but is equally known as a poor representative of Judeo-Christian theology and a chronic mishandler of the text.
For example, he appeals to the Book of Proverbs to make a theological point yet, does not note that the proverbs in the Book of Proverbs are proverbs and should be understood as, applied as, proverbs that is to say; in a proverbial manner. Michael Brown points out to him that he needs to think about how he interprets the various genres within the Bible.
Also, when prophets are speaking to specific issues, in specific times and specific places, pertaining to specific personages Bart Ehrman applies it to all people of all times and all places and then claims contradiction.
Bart Ehrman also commits another well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point in proposing false dichotomies as he juxtaposes the here and now, on the one hand, and the by and by on the other. Indeed, he continuously falls into false dichotomy such as either “appealing to God” or actually doing something. Yet, the Judeo-Christian answer is to split the horns of the false dilemma by stating; do both.
Fascinatingly, Bart Ehrman states that (besides giving to charity, etc.) he does good because he teaches in a university. Yet, considering that which he teaches he is not doing good as he is teaching falsehoods which I have evidenced time and time again: see my section on Bart Ehrman.
Bart Ehrman fundamentally misunderstands the Book of Job—even though Michael Brown continuously corrects him on this point. For one, he actually argues that the book does not have one author and has been edited together because it has a beginning and end and also a middle—go figure. Also, he misrepresents the contents of the last chapter. He continuously focuses on insisting that, that which happened to Job was due to a “test” by God which some refer to as a wager of sorts between God and satan yet, this missed the point and does so severely.
The point is that the objections of the unbeliever are simply and 100% irrelevant and that the Book of Job does present the ultimate philosophical answer to the problem of evil. Now I will simply refer the interested reader to The Book of Job – Dismissed but Essential and Was “the Problem of Evil” Solved Before it was Ever Proposed?
As an example of the manner in which Bart Ehrman misrepresents the text and thereby—knowingly or not—manipulates his audience (and his students) he claims that the Book of Job teaches that there is no afterlife by quoting Job 14:11-12 so let us consider 14:10-15
But man dies and is laid away; indeed he breathes his last and where is he? As water disappears from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dries up, so man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep. “Oh, that You would hide me in the grave, that You would conceal me until Your wrath is past, that You would appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait, till my change comes.
You shall call, and I will answer You; You shall desire the work of Your hands.
Well then, there it is, he is right after all—right? Such a conclusion would fall into the, apparently popular, utterly fallacious view that whatever the Bible states is 1) true and 2) prescribed. Yet, for example, when the Bible records a lie that was told the lie is not true and the action is not prescribed but only described.
In the text above Job is in utter despair, recall that beginning in ch. 3 he actually curses the very day of his own birth. Thus, he is not giving a theological discourse but is rather expressing his anguish: he wants it all to end.
In fact, he plainly states that he is asking for it to be that way, “Oh, that You would hide me in the grave…”
Yet, when he gets some perspective and considering God’s truth he states the following in 19:25b-27
I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, a that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!
This is the earliest attestation of the physical resurrection found in the Bible as it is after Job’s skin is destroyed that in his flesh he will see God with his eyes. The escape is not to now say, “Aha! Contradiction!” as now you know that the context determines the meaning.
In fact, in the first text it hints at this since Job states, “conceal me until Your wrath is past, that You would appoint me a set time, and remember me!…I will wait, till my change comes. You shall call, and I will answer You…”
In the end, Bart Ehrman has rejected God due to the problem of evil—that is correct, it was not due to textual criticism—and postulates, in essence, the Islamic view of heaven which is wine and women; see Muhammad and Jesus. Or, as the Bible states it, “If the dead do not rise, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!’” (1st Corinthians 15:32 ). But what has he gained from rejecting God due to evil / suffering? Evil/suffering still exist and now he does not even have God to blame.
Agnosticism/atheism does absolutely nothing about evil/suffering and I do mean absolutely as in ultimately, transcendentally, etc.
Except that, atheism makes evil/suffering even worse.
It does so by 100% guaranteeing that is has no greater meaning or purpose (except for the benefit of the evildoer who enjoys it and, ultimately, gets away with it), that it is, indeed, for nothing and that it cannot be redeemed.
One more point: it seemed that Bart Ehrman needed a lozenge since his every sentence ends in a grunt. Yet, he did not sound this way during Q&A thus, it appears that it was his way of attempting to sound passionate and only comes through as annoying.
Now to the debate and to comments by an atheist who attended:
Audio courtesy of the incomparable; Apologetics 315
Atheist comments (which Marcus was savvy enough to find):