My contention with Bart is that he’s a fundamentalist — someone who is unwilling to process an issue in any other way than the black-and-white, either-or fallacy that he himself has framed. I’m sympathetic to him only in the sense that some acute personal suffering appears to be behind his fundamentalism. While I wish there was something I could do to help in that regard, I also have to be honest and say that it seems quite clear that Bart’s personal pain has skewered his scholarship. He’s human.
My greater irritation is the way the masses (aided and abetted by a pathologically ignorant media) swallow whatever Bart says as though its some grand, now self-evident discovery, or think that no one can be looking at the same data and still believe in the reality of the Christ of the gospels. Wrong on both counts. There are many scholars who do what Bart does (textual criticism, New Testament studies) who draw conclusions contrary to Ehrman’s and, more importantly, are capable of judging his method and scholarship.
To illustrate this point regarding Bart Ehrman and popular culture Heiser discusses a recent topic in textual research; whether or not the phrase "Son of God" originally appeared in Mark's Gospel, the oldest New Testament book. Ehrman typically argues that the authentic texts of the early Christians did not describe Christ in divine terms, and any descriptions of Christ as being divine (phrases such as "Son of God" etc) were added by later generations by "orthodox" scribes who sought to alter scripture in order to make it support their newer, inauthentic, paternalistic theology.
Textual critic Tommy Wasserman takes quite a different stance. I had originally stated that Wasserman showed there is far more historical and manuscript evidence to support traditionally accepted view. This however would not be the most faithful explanation of his point. It would be more accurate to say the balance of probabilities is in favor of the long reading. Thank you to Dr. Wasserman for pointing this out to me. I recommend reading Dr. Wasserman's paper. It can be downloaded here:
www.orebromissionsskola.se/personal/wasserman
(scroll down to the article on Mark 1:1).
With this object lesson in mind, Mike Heiser continues:
... the issue is that there is more than one way to look at New Testament manuscript data. Ehrman isn’t discovering something new and unknown to scholars. He isn’t putting forth unassailable arguments that make the faithful run for the hills. He’s arguing his position based on how he sifts the data — i.e., his views are simply interpretations, nothing more — and other professionals in his own field might conclude other interpretations are more reasonable.
Entire article here:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2011/10/bart-ehrman-vs-the-son-of-god-in-mark-11-a-response/
