I don't see the point of making this conversation into a book. It doesn't go in depth enough to warrant it. The debate format (which is what the original conversation is) suits better for a light intro into these ideas.

I had trouble liking this book. I've read several of Ehrman's books and liked the earlier ones better when he analyzed material without going into his shifting personal religious beliefs. The format of this book, that is, a transcript of a conference, is obviously not as tight as a book that took years to write, and the interplay of ideas and beliefs between participants was not useful to me.

This brief book is an edited transcript of a debate between Ehrman and Evans. It was a short read, but full of thought-provoking, detailed explanations. It was surprising how much they agreed on things and weren’t attempting to have a cantankerous back and forth full of gotcha-moment attempts. Both men were thoughtful and measured in their statements and had a lot of respect for each other. A lot of time was spent on defining terms and with so much agreement in the end, the reader is left to decide how to look at all the information through the lens of faith and doubt.

Thanks to NetGalley and Westminster John Knox Press for an advanced copy of this book.

this was a really interesting read, the authors were able to create an interesting read with a good question. It really made you think.

(8/10 stars)
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK, THE AUTHORS & THEIR CREDENTIALS: Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? is a collaboration between Bart D. Ehrman, Craig Evans, and Robert Stewart. The content of the book is mostly a transcript of a debate between Ehrman and Evans at the seventh Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in 2012, regarding whether or not we can consider the biblical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) to be accurate historical representations of the physical Jesus.

Both Ehrman and Evans are highly acclaimed Biblical scholars, professors, and authors with two very different responses to their studies: Ehrman is a confessed agnostic, which happened in the middle of his career, after he researched and finished his New York Times bestselling book God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer. Evans, however, is an evangelical Christian speaker and theologian who travels and speaks at colleges and churches internationally; he is, however, quick to state that he’s not a conservative Christian in this debate.

Both men have written and edited many books, and both have extensively studied language and the historical origins of Christianity, specifically focusing on the history of how the Bible was written and the accuracy of the gospels themselves. (And that is just a VERY small fraction of their studies and works, but it’s what pertains to this book; feel free to look them up to get a more in-depth idea of their other areas of expertise.)

Robert Stewart is a professor of Philosophy and Theology at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, and - more importantly to this specific debate - he’s the Greer-Heard Chair of Faith and Culture. He writes an informative (but definitely academic and slightly dry) introduction and ending essay to bookend the debate itself; the number of footnotes in this book, especially in Stewart’s sections, is alarming and indicates the vast amounts of material - somewhat contradictory in nature - that exists regarding this hot-button topic.

MY THOUGHTS: I am a recovering English major (ha), and a nerd for the history of language, religion, and Christianity in particular, so I was incredibly excited to get my hands on a copy of this book in Netgalley.
Full disclosure: I own six other books by Ehrman already, and none by Evans (merely because I’d never heard of him), so I FULLY expected to walk away from this debate on Ehrman’s side before I even started this book. However, I was committed to going in with an open mind, and I found myself more fascinated than I’d imagined I would be by the opposing side that was presented by Evans. In short (truer words were never spoken): Ehrman does not believe we can trust the picture painted of Jesus by the gospels as a historically accurate one; Evans does.

Let’s unpack why: Ehrman has made his career pointing out the many troubling parts of the Bible that contradict one another (see Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, and Why We Don’t Know About Them), and diving deeply into the meanings behind these contradictions. He’s very clear to point out that each gospel writer - not ACTUALLY disciples of Christ, but educated Greeks writing decades after the death of Jesus - has their own agenda and their own targeted audience, which I won’t go into because it’s a moot point in this specific book. Because of these clear agendas - and because of the very nature of these sometimes uncomfortably irrefutable and irreconcilable differences (including whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, whether it was a virgin birth, and whether he was horrified or accepting of his crucifixion) - Ehrman does not believe the gospels themselves can provide us with a reliably historical picture of who Jesus was as a person. He also points out how some of the historical “facts” provided in the gospels actually CANNOT be true, like Herod’s census, and were thus only included to further the author’s own narrative.

Evans, on the other hand, takes a slightly more accepting view of what qualifies as historical documentation. To him, the gospels meet several of the tests of historical authenticity (explained in detail in Stewart’s introduction), and to help his argument, he uses the fact that many biblical scholars from the past few centuries are willing to accept the gospels as historical documents. As Stewart points out in his intro, history is subjective and interpretive; what passes as historical one century will be debunked and replaced generations later. Evans points out that the gospels are written within an acceptably close timeframe to the life of Jesus and thus can be considered fairly historically accurate; there are multiple stories and events corroborated among them, and the differences can be chalked up to the cultural practices of teaching at the time. He introduces us to a concept called chreiai, where Greek students “in late antiquity” would memorize certain sayings by well-known teachers, writers, or philosophers. They were then encouraged to take that phrase, use the knowledge they gained regarding the subject, and make it their own - even changing and modifying it to prove their own point. To Evans, this explains why certain parables and stories are different among the synoptic gospels. (Although even Evans agrees to leave the gospel of John out of most of this debate, as it’s so out of left field.)

I won’t go into detail regarding the depths of their debate, or all of the ways in which they actually seem to agree - even though Evans may not necessarily see it that way, Ehrman does. However, I will say that your takeaway from this book will depend on your overall approach to the Bible, and how you view it. Are you looking for a historically accurate (dare I say, even factually infallible, you westernized evangelical Christians, you???), educational book about supposedly true-to-life people and events? Or do you view it more as a comprehensive collection of stories and experiences meant to teach and provide guidelines for a more fulfilling, spiritually-rich life? Neither Evans nor Ehrman may change your views completely, but you’ll walk away with more of an appreciation for both sides of this argument.

And to be fair, there are some validities that can be found within both arguments. Evans gives us a good overview of what historians actually look for when verifying reliable, hopefully accurate sources; logically speaking, it’s true that multiple accounts corroborating certain events lend credence to the probability that those events actually happened. As he points out, we don’t have videotapes from the time of Jesus, or Caesar, or Napoleon; all we have are multiple accounts that we can parse and examine closely, and use to construct a reasonably reliable narrative - especially when combined with our established archaeological and anthropological knowledge of the cultural, societal, and religious norms of the day.

However, you cannot discount Ehrman’s point that these accounts are gospels, not textbooks or biographies (just like the New Testament letters were correspondence sent directly to certain communities with unique challenges, and not general guidelines for Christian living for everyone - but that’s another story for another day). There is a purpose for these, and that purpose is to tell a carefully crafted set of stories to spread the “good news” of Jesus. Not only that, but each gospel writer had a specific audience in mind and a specific argument they wanted to make with their own portrayal of Jesus. And doesn’t this knowledge - combined with the knowledge that the authors of the synoptic gospels shared the same sources, including copying each other - affect how literally we can consider their versions of events?

While this book can be a bit dry and academic in its explanations of historicity and what scholars really think, the actual debate between Ehrman and Evans was a fascinating one. I’m very glad that it’s captured in writing for students of the historical Jesus to read and examine. It’s not often that we get to read a point-counterpoint argument where one biblical scholar is directly answering the questions posed by their “opponent,” and I fully appreciated both this cyclical back-and-forth discussion, and their ongoing arguments and answers to the difficult questions posed.

Two leading Biblical scholars come together to debate the question of Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus.
Craig Evans and Bart Erhman debated this critical subject and this book is the transcript of the debate.
To have both a for (Evans) and against (Erhman) compiled together in one setting is a tremendous resource for the student of modern biblical scholarship.
Whatever position you might hold on the concept of the Historical Jesus, this book is an excellent introduction to the opposing views in current scholarship.

Excellent resource. Highly recommend it.

Thank you to Westminster John Knox press for the ARC copy to read and review.

A stimulating debate between two respected scholars - but honestly too short for me to consider buying it. I think it's a great primer on the reliability and thinking about historical texts (and genre) and I did learn some useful new facts - such as how long manuscripts could remain in use. But ultimately, I'd want something longer and meatier.

“Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus?” is a fascinating transcript between two intellectual giants. The debate between Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans, both incredible scholars, offer compelling arguments for the nature of history and really the trustworthiness of the scriptures and ultimately the historicity of Jesus. If you are a serious Bible student, you will want to pick this up and mine this literary treasure for all its worth.

This book is a transcript of a debate held between Bible scholars. Each presents information regarding how the Bible was compiled (specifically the Gospels) and how "historically" accurate the information should be considered to be.

There is significant discussion about dating the Gospels, as well as how much it matters if the historical details are correct. They also discuss what it means to be "historically accurate" from the changing points of view of this definition over the years.

There is a significant Q & A Section as well as an extensive bibliography at the end of the book. The book itself is not very long; it took me about an hour to read.

Overall I was not given a specific answer; instead, I was given more food for thought about what it means to be a historical book, as well as how much do the details matter, or were they not the point of the Gospels that we (especially as modern conservatives or fundamentalists) often make them to be.

I received an ARC as a reviewer for NetGalley.

Bart D. Ehrman, Craig A. Evans, and Robert B. Stewart, Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020). $25.00

Can We Trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? is a debate edited into a book. It opens, even before the table of content, with a quote from each of the contributors summarizing their perspectives. For more than a decade Bart Ehrman has repeated the narrative at the popular level that Scripture cannot be trusted historically. Some may consider it valuable theologically, but it has a variety of issues and between edits and changes, we simply cannot trust it. Craig Evans is on the other end of the spectrum. His argument is the New Testament is historically reliable and we can therefore trust what it says about the historical Jesus. Robert Stewart, not a member of the debate but acting as the editor, does hold to the historical reliability.

Stewart launches into an introduction about history and its object by taking up approximately 20 percent of the book. He gives a model of how to read the Gospels with four proposals. It is a generally helpful introduction and I believe it deserves attention. It is easy to come into a topic having such significance that I want to see the individual whom I disagree with weeping and repenting by the end of the debate with their argument utterly destroyed. Stewart’s introduction helps ground the reader and encourages them to be more cautious in their rush to judgment.

The pattern follows any standard moderated debate. Ehrman gives his opening statement followed by Evans. In this order, they give their responses and then conclusions. These consist of just over 40 pages. A Q&A section comes after and Stewart concludes with an overview of current Historical Jesus studies and additional reading options.

The arguments are nothing new and because the debate was in 2011, I will not take the time to interact with each item given as evidence or rebuttals. Ehrman begins with his standard story about his schooling before suggesting there are mistakes between the different gospel accounts. There are clearly people making up stories because the stories do not add up he argues. He summarizes by stating they are Gospels which are proclaiming good news, not histories.

Evans desires to answer four questions and addresses the validity of the New Testament by looking at the nature of the evidence, manuscripts, “realism or verisimilitude” nature of the Gospels, and the discrepancies.

Evans section has a variety of footnotes that could be received as preferential favor by Stewart. Stewart notes this at the beginning before Ehrman’s opening argument and that Evans supplied them as a part of his original favor. We are not given information whether Erhman did not have any or simply did not provide them, so I think it is unfair to presume Evans was given favorable treatment. As a side note, Ehrman has always written at the popular level and even the content of his material is more of an appeal to doubt than historical objections.

There is one matter I would like to address, though it has been done better elsewhere. Ehrman has a worldview problem. Just because we have a significant number of manuscripts doesn’t mean they are relevant to the truthfulness of the content. Just because the actual content fits well within its own timeframe doesn’t mean it is relevant for this historical truthfulness as it relates to Jesus. Ehrman is hyper-skeptical and resists any attempt at unifying the Gospel accounts, even if scholars are not in agreement they are actually contradictions.

Ehrman states, “They might be great stories. They might be theologically significant. But they can’t be historically accurate if they contradict one another.” (55) No Dr. Ehrman, they cannot be theologically significant if they are not historically accurate. They cannot be trusted, and therefore the very nature of Jesus and the claims of his work and person must be doubted if the NT cannot be trusted historically.

I received a complimentary digital copy of this book from the publisher for review purposes. My comments are independent and my own. Quotations could change in the finished book.