Stephen Colbert
Alan Knox hit a home run in my view. He is using textual criticism approach ascribed to by Bart Ehrman to demonstrate that he did not have an interview with Stephen Colbert when, in fact, he did have that interview. Hilarious Knox!! Two thumbs up from me!!
In case you haven’t seen it yet, the title of this post is in reference to a statement made by Stephen Colbert to Bart Ehrman during a recent interview. (See the interview here.) During this interview, Ehrman claimed that the gospels record different versions of the crucifixion of Jesus, suggesting that the accounts are not historical. As evidence, he mentions the accounts of the different sayings of Jesus in the different gospel accounts.
I’ve scanned the blogosphere for posts that related to this interview:
According to Dave Pierre’s account here, Ehrman made several statements during the interview, including the following: “The Bible shows that, in fact, some of the earliest teachings of Jesus aren’t what became the standard doctrines of Christianity”.
According to Darren’s account here, Ehrman’s main point was that “the earliest Christians didn’t think Jesus was divine”. Unfortunately, Dave Pierre (above) did not include this point, and Darren does not include any of the quotes which Dave Pierre included.
According to Wyatt Robert’s account here and mr palm’s account here, Ehrman must not have said anything, because there are no Ehrman quotes recounted in either post.
Based on these four witnesses, and using Ehrman’s own logic, it is clear that Ehrman was never interviewed by Colbert and that these people made up their accounts of the “interview” to serve their own interests. How do we know this? Because they included different information about the so-called interview. Since the accounts of the “interview” differ, it is obvious that the “interview” never occured, or at least, if it did occur, the “accounts” are highly exaggerated.
I could not have done better research myself!!
Related Articles
- Bible has some shocking ‘family values’ (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
- Which Of These Books Should I Purchase? (diglot.wordpress.com)
- Flotsam and jetsam (11/26) (westernthm.wordpress.com)
The Good News 
That’s good stuff right there. Interesting how Ehrman’s own technique doesn’t hold water.
LikeLike
What I think is really sad is, Ehrman is basically an evangelical who wanted to be honest and so he banged his head against the two poles of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the fact of biblical textual variants and came to the conclusion that the bible is NOT “inerrant,” something the early church never claimed anyway. The point of the bible is that truth is to be found in the broad narratives and the symbols and meta-narratives just as much as in specific statements attributed to various speakers. I can’t believe God would stake the future of his church on any specific written text, but rather on the constellation of inspired texts and on the fact of the indwelling Spirit’s ongoing personal enlightenment of each new child of God regarding the true meaning and relevance of the texts. Biblical inerrancy is only a doctrine invented to prop up the usurpation of justification as the primary element of salvation, rather than sanctification or glorification; those three elements exist in a trinity just as sacred as the Holy Trinity of God himself. It is the justice of the Cross that makes possible the indwelling of God’s Spirit in the believer, transforming a person on the inside in preparation for the future external transformation or resurrection of our bodies on the Last Day. The broad narrative of the bible from Genesis to Revelation reveals and supports those truths regardless of biblical translations or textual “errors” that will inevitably creep into any enterprise that has human activity associated with it, like the original inspiration and ongoing preservation of scripture. God didn’t leave the disciples a “Book,” he left them HIMSELF, just as he promised he would. The books came later.
LikeLike
Hahaha. Great post.
LikeLike
There’s one slight problem with this entire set-up. The accounts of the interview were not written forty years or more after the Stephen Colbert show by people who were probably not actually eyewitnesses of the show. Makes a BIG difference!
LikeLike
So, who were the non-eye witnesses that you refer to?
LikeLike
Pingback: 2010 in review for the Good News blog | The Good News
Pingback: My Investigation of Bart Ehrman | The Good News