In John 8:1-11, Jesus forgives the women who was taken in adultery, but critical scholars, such as Dr. Bart Erhman, claim that no early or reliable manuscripts contain John 8:1-11, and that, thus, it was probably a later addition. How would you respond to this claim? I have included quotes from Erhman below: > "The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the > earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor in > many of the important versions of the text... It appears to have been > added later, perhaps to fill in a gap in the narrative." (Misquoting Jesus) > > "The story, even though it may have been part of the oral tradition, > is not originally part of the Gospel of John, but rather was added > later by a scribe, perhaps because the story was well known in > Christian tradition and fit well with the themes of the Gospel." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) > > "The story was eventually included in some versions of the Gospel, > likely because it was seen as a powerful teaching of Jesus’ mercy, but > its late inclusion suggests it was not part of the original Gospel." (A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)

In a recent interview, Bart Ehrman appears to contradict himself in regards to how at one time he believed the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. The video interview can be found here . Early on in the interview, at 3:52, he states, > ...even if Jesus rose from the dead, an historian cannot show it. And > absolutely think that’s true. In fact, I thought that was true when I > was a Christian, because I knew what history does and history cannot > talk about acts of God, because God is not susceptible to historical > research. However, at 6:26 minutes into that same interview, Bart Ehrman states: > I used to go around arguing that I could prove Jesus was raised from > the dead. One charitable way of resolving this contradiction is to propose that the early Ehrman viewed the New Testament somewhat along the lines of what Norman Geisler wrote in a critique of evidential apologetics: > …facts and events have ultimate meaning only within and by virtue of > the context of the world view in which they are conceived. Hence, it > is a vicious circle to argue that a given fact (say, the resuscitation > of Christ’s body) is evidence of a certain truth claim (say Christ’s > claim to be God), *unless it can be established that the event comes in > the context of a theistic universe.* (Christian Apologetics, p. 95) Did Moody Bible Institute, in the days when Bart Ehrman was a student there, teach an apologetic approach that was similar to the anti-evidential view that Norman Geisler taught? If so, is this view also that of Catholic neo-Thomistic apologetics in general? Or, is it peculiar to just Protestant fundamentalism?

A Wikipedia article on the Authorship of Luke–Acts has a quote from Bart E. Ehrman commenting on the stylistic insertions of the "we" passage as indicating a forgery: > According to Bart D. Ehrman, the "we" passages are written by someone > falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order > to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of > Paul's views and activities. Ehrman holds that The Acts of the > Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery. The traditional view is that Luke wrote Acts and Luke traveled with Paul on some of his journeys, so the "we" passages are the parts of the journey where Luke was present. On what grounds does Ehrman push back against this view, so as to make the case that these stylistic changes prove the book is a forgery?

Bart Ehrman seems to be the atomic bomb of the Christian community, having released books like *Misquoting Jesus* and *Jesus Interrupted*, which call into question the reliability and inerrancy of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. Are his arguments new? How does one respond to or refute his arguments? For example, Ehrman argues that some scribes "corrected" or reworded certain verses to fit their particular theological views or to align with what made sense to them (e.g., Jesus being angry as He healed the leper).

Are there any published, written or recorded (audio or video) responses to the claims Bart D Ehrman makes in How Jesus Became God ? I'm currently reading this and Misquoting Jesus as part of an ongoing examination of what I believe and, as someone raised in the Christian tradition, I am finding Ehrman's arguments to be both eye-opening and disturbing. I want to make sure that my research includes information from a diverse range of source material so that I can make informed decisions, which is why I pose this question