Chapter 9
Chapter 9
Fish Tales
Bart Ehrman's Red Herrings and the Resurrection of Jesus
Michael Licona
Most people in North America who are interested in the discussion of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection are familiar with a scholar named Bart Ehrman. Ehrman made his name in the field of textual criticism and is a former student of the late prominent Princeton professor, Bruce Metzger. However, Ehrman has also published extensively in the fields of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and early Christianities. Many of his books have been best sellers, including Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted. His book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is a widely used textbook. Ehrman, once an evangelical, abandoned his Christian faith and now regards himself as a "happy agnostic." While his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship, he is a gifted communicator with the ability to present complex positions in a lay-friendly manner.
I have had the opportunity to debate Bart Ehrman on two occasions. Ehrman and I have shared a few meals together and have corresponded numerous times via e-mail. I have found him to be a nice guy and regard him as a friend. However, being nice does not necessarily assist one in producing good arguments.
Both of our debates focused on the topic, "Can historians prove that Jesus rose from the dead?" Ehrman insisted on phrasing the question from this angle. His position is that there are a number of insurmountable challenges faced by historians that prohibit them from assessing a miracle claim. Accordingly, it is not even necessary for an agnostic like Ehrman to argue that Jesus was not raised. For him, a historical investigation of the matter is stopped in its tracks before it can get started.
Since I have a strong interest in matters related to the philosophy of history and historical method, I happily agreed to Ehrman's demand that the question to be debated be phrased in the manner he requested.1 In both debates, I laid out a carefully defined historical method I would follow.2 Regarding the historical facts I would submit to historical method, I chose only three, all of which Ehrman has granted in his writings:
I wanted to make it easy to focus on the debate topic we had chosen. The facts would not be disputed, since both of us agreed on the facts I presented. Instead, we could focus on the method I used to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus had been raised from the dead. If my historical method could withstand Ehrman's scrutiny, then the conclusion followed that historians can prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
In Ehrman's opening statement, he devoted all but a fraction of his time to attacking the Gospels as historically reliable sources. At first look, this may appear to be a valid approach. After all, if the Gospels are not historically reliable sources, then it would appear to be a difficult task to establish that historians could prove that Jesus had been raised from the dead. On a closer look, however, Ehrman's case completely falls apart.
In logic, there is a fallacy known as a "red herring." The term is borrowed from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring—red in color—is dragged across the fox's path and into the woods in an attempt to divert the attention of the dogs. In debate, a red herring is an argument that is irrelevant to the debate at hand. However, it is of interest. And therein lay the danger. For if the debaters and audience members are not careful, they will be drawn by the red herring into a different debate than the one agreed upon.
Most of Ehrman's objections to the resurrection of Jesus focused on attacking the Gospels and are red herrings for at least two major reasons. First, the New Testament literature is comprised of 27 books and letters, only four of which are the Gospels. The three facts that I presented can be established using only literature written prior to the Gospels, such as Paul's letters. So, Ehrman's objections to the Gospels are irrelevant. The second reason is of even greater interest. Despite Ehrman's hesitations toward the Gospels, in his books he still grants as historical the three facts I presented. Therefore, his objections to the historical reliability of the Gospels are all red herrings when it comes to the question of whether historians can prove that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Unfortunately, a number of the audience members took Ehrman's bait and followed him off the path we had agreed to follow beforehand. Although he lost the debate on Jesus' resurrection, Ehrman was effective in placing doubts about the Gospels in the minds of a number of the Christians present. Since Christians are rightly concerned with whether the Gospels are reliable sources on Jesus and the debate on Jesus' resurrection was not the place to answer Ehrman's red herrings, I would like to address them in what follows. To that end, I intend to answer Bart Ehrman's four major objections to the historical reliability of the Gospels.
Challenge #1: The Problem of Authorship: Who Wrote the Gospels?
Ehrman claims that the traditional authorship of the New Testament Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is mistaken, since the original manuscripts did not contain the titles now prominent in our New Testaments (e.g., "The Gospel According to Matthew"). Therefore, Ehrman refers to the Gospels as "forgeries."3 In fact, in his book Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman contends that of the current 27 books and letters in the NT, all but eight are "forgeries." This is a colossal overstatement intended to shock his readers. Scholarship has not confirmed such a conclusion. (See the previous chapter for a more detailed critique of Ehrman on this.)
So who wrote the Gospels? Ehrman may be correct that the originals—which we do not have—did not contain the titles found in our New Testaments. Of course, we cannot know for certain, since, as just stated, we do not have the originals. But even if the titles were absent on the originals, this is not nearly as big a problem as Ehrman imagines.
It was not unusual for ancient authors to leave their names out of their works. Plutarch was a Greek author who penned more than 50 known biographies during the late first to early second centuries. Plutarch's name is absent from all of them. It is the tradition that has been passed down through the centuries that gives us information pertaining to who wrote these biographies. And no one questions that Plutarch is the author.
So, what ancient traditions inform us concerning the authorship of the canonical Gospels? The very first is a Christian leader named Papias who wrote c. AD 120 and perhaps earlier. Papias may have known the apostle John or another Christian leader who was close to the apostles.4 He was the first to report that Matthew and John had been members of the 12 disciples of Jesus and penned the Gospels attributed to them. He also reported that Mark wrote what had been relayed to him by the apostle Peter, another of the Twelve. A few decades later, another Christian leader named Justin (c. AD 150) reported that Luke, who had been a traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke. Shortly thereafter, still another Christian leader named Irenaeus (c. AD 170), who had probably heard one of the followers of the apostle John named Polycarp, reiterated Papias's tradition about the Gospels' authorship.
Historians are faced with the challenge of determining the extent to which these reports are reliable. For some time, they have debated whether the traditional authorship of the Gospels is accurate, and many, like Ehrman, have opted to reject it. However, many hold to the traditional authorship of all four Gospels and especially to that of Mark and Luke.5 A number of scholars hold to the traditional authorship of John, although today's majority contends that a minor disciple who was not one of the Twelve but who had traveled with Jesus and was an eyewitness to his ministry is the source behind John's Gospel. These scholars think that one or two of the unnamed disciple's pupils wrote what they had heard from him, perhaps even under his close guidance. In this case, we still would have eyewitness testimony from one of Jesus' disciples who had traveled with him. The authorship of Matthew is the most heavily contested of the four Gospels. Yet there are a number of impressive scholars who maintain its traditional authorship.6 I am not contending here for a particular position. Instead, I am making the point that in spite of the ongoing debate—one that is far from settled—the evidence in support of the traditional authorship of all four Gospels is strong enough to render it a reasonable position.
So, what about Ehrman's claim that the New Testament Gospels are "forgeries"? This is a statement intended to shock the reader. If an evangelical scholar were to argue that the traditional authorship of the Gospels is established beyond doubt, Ehrman would probably say that he has every right to believe that the evidence supports traditional authorship but that "established beyond doubt" is more than the evidence can bear. In a similar way, Ehrman has a right to believe that the traditional authors did not actually pen the Gospels and that their actual authorship is unknown. But to say that the New Testament Gospels were of a certainty not written by their traditional authors is an overstatement. While no rock-solid evidence exists pertaining to the authorship of the Gospels, the ancient testimony supporting traditional authorship is good, although not beyond question. The fact that our earliest manuscripts do not include the traditional titles that appear in our Bibles does not mean that we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. As the Gospels began to circulate, and more were written and also circulated, it could be that it was at this time that the titles were added in order to avoid confusion.7
In summary, a reasonable case can be made for the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Although the matter is debated, it is certainly misleading to assert that we have no idea who wrote them. Most importantly, modern scholars, including Ehrman, mine the Gospels for historical nuggets and find numerous historical facts that can be known about Jesus. And they do this apart from the issue of authorship.
Challenge #2: The Problem of Dating: When Were the Gospels Written?
In agreement with most biblical scholars, Ehrman states that the New Testament Gospels were written 35–65 years after the events they purport to describe. He regards this time gap as being too wide for purposes of historical reliability, and asserts that historians desire sources written much closer to the events. He adds that this time gap between the events and when they are reported in the Gospels is similar to the distance in time between WWII and now. While that may be true of John's Gospel, the gap between Jesus and the Synoptics (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke) is closer to the gap in time between us and the Vietnam War. Is this also too wide a time gap for Ehrman? If the History Channel interviewed three Vietnam veterans concerning their combat experiences in 1974, we would express no pause concerning the time distance between the events and their interview. Even the 65 years for John is not that long when eyewitnesses are involved. If Ehrman truly believes what he is saying, he should notify the History Channel that all documentaries including recent interviews of WWII veterans are unreliable.
It can forthrightly be granted that recollections of the past can become fuzzy and inaccurate as time progresses. Our brains can redact memories to conform to how we may wish that the events may have turned out or adapt our responses to be more positive or powerful than they actually were. However, this sort of redaction usually has its limits, and this is especially true while other eyewitness testimony is available. Moreover, I may have a less accurate recollection of the content of my dinner discussion of one week ago while maintaining near pinpoint accuracy of a major and unique event that occurred in my life 40 years ago.
Let's now consider an ancient example. Caesar Augustus is regarded as Rome's greatest emperor and was ruling the empire when Jesus was born. Historians rely on six chief sources to learn about Augustus's adulthood: a funerary inscription that is nearly 4,000 words in length, Plutarch who wrote around 90 years after Augustus's death, and four others writing 100–200 years after his death.8 When we consider that this is what we have for the greatest Roman emperor, four biographies of Jesus written within 35–65 years of His death is pretty good!
The error of Ehrman's historical thinking does not stop here. He further claims that the stories about Jesus in the Gospels were carelessly passed from one Christian to another, as in the modern game of telephone, in which an elementary school teacher whispers a sentence to a student who then whispers the same statement to the student next to him and so forth until the last student hears it. The result, of course, is a final statement that is a significantly distorted rendition of the original. Ehrman suggests that the stories about Jesus became grossly distorted over the several decades that followed Jesus' death before they were reported in written form in the Gospels. This is surprising and reveals a naiveté on Ehrman's part pertaining to how Jewish tradition was transmitted in antiquity.
For well over a decade I trained in the Korean martial art of taekwondo, earning a second-degree black belt. From 1986 to 1989, I ran a martial arts school where I trained a number of students through the black belt level. One of the most important components of traditional martial arts training is "the form," which is a series of movements simulating a fight against multiple opponents. Generally speaking, martial arts forms are very old, having been passed from instructor to student for centuries. Students are carefully trained to perfect the forms of their particular art in order to master various techniques. In the mid-1980s, I learned forms from an eighth-degree black belt who had received instruction from General Choi Hong Hi, who had founded the art of taekwondo in 1955. Given the emphasis on passing along the same form, I was confident that my instructor had passed along to me the same form he had received from General Choi, although it had been three decades since the forms had been created. I, in turn, passed along the same form to my students that I had received from my instructor.
In antiquity, much learning occurred by means of oral tradition, since only about 10 percent of the general population could read. When Paul communicated apostolic tradition concerning Jesus, he did not take liberties to alter it. And we can actually test him on the matter. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives his nonbinding opinion, followed by a teaching of Jesus (i.e., Jesus tradition) which was binding, followed by Paul's apostolic ruling which was also binding. What is noteworthy is Paul did not do what numerous scholars often accuse the early Christians of doing: attribute a teaching to Jesus in order to answer a present situation he had not actually addressed. We observe in 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul refused to pass off his teachings as though they were from Jesus. The Jesus tradition had been passed along to him most likely by the Jerusalem apostles and was to be entrusted to others unaltered. For this reason, nonnarrative tradition was preserved in formulas, creeds, and hymns for easy memorization. Paul wrote, "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received" (1 Cor 15:3 RSV). Accordingly, it is demonstrable that, at least for Paul, the practice of passing along the Jesus tradition more closely resembled the passing along of the forms in the martial arts than it did the game of telephone.
Paul had learned the Jesus tradition from those who had known Him. His letters contain oral traditions that are even earlier than the Gospels, and in some cases much earlier. Although Paul does not write a biography of Jesus, his letters reveal his familiarity with a number of details pertaining to the life of Jesus that had been communicated to him by Jesus' disciples and their colleagues. In Gal 1:18, a letter certainly written by Paul, he tells us that he visited with the apostle Peter for 15 days. Noteworthy is the Greek term Paul uses for "visited," historēsai, from which we get the English term "history." Paul had met with Peter and had inquired of him about the life of Jesus. So, Paul provides us with a few details about Jesus he had received from those who had known Jesus very well. We observe such traditions in 1 Cor 11:23–25 and 15:3–7 in which details are reported pertaining to the Last Supper as well as Jesus' death and resurrection. There are about a dozen references to Jesus' teachings in Paul's letters and about 30 additional possible echoes. Because Paul was well acquainted with the life of Jesus, he is able to instruct the Corinthian believers: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor 11:1 NKJV). How could Paul imitate Christ if he knew nothing about Him? Therefore, to the extent that the Gospels reflect Pauline teachings concerning Jesus, they probably reflect the teachings of the Jerusalem apostles, most of whom had walked with Jesus.
In summary, although Ehrman contends that the New Testament Gospels were written too long after the events they purport to describe to be regarded as reliable accounts, we observed that this is simply not so. Moreover, his contention that the tradition about Jesus was changed dramatically during the 35- to 65-year period before it was put into writing is based on an inaccurate understanding of how oral tradition was preserved and passed along to others in the early Christian church.
Challenge #3: The Problem of Differences: Do the Gospels Contradict One Another?
Ehrman contends that the New Testament Gospels are not reliable because they contain differences between them when reporting the same event. Pertaining to Jesus' death, Ehrman asks whether Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover meal or the day after it, at 9:00 a.m. or just after noon, whether he or Simon of Cyrene carried His cross, and whether one or both thieves with whom He was crucified cursed Him. Regarding Jesus' resurrection, Ehrman asks how many women went to the tomb, what were their names, whether one angel, two angels, or a young man appeared at the tomb, whether the women reported the empty tomb to the male disciples or remained silent, whether Jesus first appeared to His disciples in Jerusalem or Galilee, and whether Jesus ascended on Easter or weeks later. To all of these questions Ehrman answers, "It depends which Gospel you read."9
Bracketing for the moment the question of whether these differences can be reconciled, how important are they, historically speaking? Differences among accounts are of interest to historians. However, they are not usually as toxic to historical investigation as Ehrman suggests. You may be surprised to learn that survivors of the Titanic contradicted one another pertaining to whether the ship broke in two prior to sinking or went down intact. We may wonder how some of the eyewitnesses could have been so mistaken when they were right there. And yet, no one concluded that the Titanic did not sink. The only conclusion was that a question mark remained pertaining to this peripheral detail.
Let's consider an example from antiquity. In July of AD 64, the city of Rome caught fire and burned. The event is reported by three primary sources: Tacitus (c. AD 112), Suetonius (c. AD 115), and Dio Cassius (c. AD 200), none of whom are ideal sources. Tacitus has an aristocratic bias and invents speeches. Suetonius is indiscriminate in his use of sources, and Dio contradicts himself. None were eyewitnesses to many, if any, of the first-century events they report. And their accounts of the fire of Rome contain differences. Did Nero send men openly to torch the city (Suetonius), or did he do it in secret (Dio), or was he probably not responsible for the fire (Tacitus)? It depends whom you read. Did Nero watch the blaze from the tower of Maecenas (Suetonius) or from his palace rooftop (Dio), or was he 35 miles away in Antium (Tacitus)? It depends whom you read. We may never have certainty pertaining to some of the peripheral details related to the fire. But these sources are good enough to conclude that Rome burned.
The same historical principle applies to the Gospels, and Ehrman knows it. While he contends that the Gospels are biased, not written by eyewitnesses, and contain differences, he still agrees with nearly every other New Testament scholar that they are reliable enough to provide historians with a substantial collection of facts that can be known about Jesus. Ehrman writes: "How is it possible to use such sources to find out what really happened historically? In fact, there are ways. Scholars have devised some methodological principles that, if followed closely and rigorously, can give us some indications of who Jesus really was."10
My point is that, even prior to a discussion over whether the differences among the Gospels can be resolved, it is noteworthy that differences in the Gospels often cited involve relatively minor details that are of limited importance. They do not disqualify the sources in which they are found as containing relatively reliable historical recollections.
So, what about the differences cited by Ehrman? Many of them can be easily resolved without having to engage in hermeneutical gymnastics. For example, having been severely scourged, Jesus could have carried His cross a portion of the way but soon had to be assisted, resulting in Simon of Cyrene's enlistment to complete the task. All historians are selective in the material they preserve, and John simply may not have found the story of Simon to be necessary for inclusion in his Gospel. A contradiction would exist only if John had clearly stated that Jesus was alone in carrying His cross the entire way. Without difficulty, we may imagine both thieves cursing Jesus and one later becoming repentant after seeing how Jesus suffered righteously and without bitterness toward His enemies.
Pertaining to Jesus' resurrection, much confusion has occurred over a quick reading of the beginning of John 20. Matthew, Mark, and Luke report that multiple women went to the tomb while John appears to report that Mary went alone. However, a careful reading of John 20:1–2 reveals that John was only showcasing the woman who was talking, since Mary reported to the disciples, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" (NKJV). Luke makes a similar move in reference to the disciples who went to the tomb upon hearing the women's report, first mentioning Peter only later to note that several had gone to the tomb (Luke 24:12,24). This observation can also account for the differences in reports pertaining to whether there were one or two angels at the tomb.
Did the first group appearance of the risen Jesus to His disciples occur in Jerusalem or Galilee, and did Jesus ascend on Easter or weeks later? Much of the confusion results from Luke's account where Jesus' resurrection, all of the appearances, and the ascension occur in Jerusalem on Easter, whereas the appearances and ascension are spread over a period of locations and time in the other Gospels. This, too, is easily resolved when we consider the literary device of time compression. Perhaps for purposes of economy, Luke compressed all of the events into one day. However, he was certainly aware that they had occurred over a longer period, since in Acts 1:3 he reports that the risen Jesus had appeared to His disciples over a period of 40 days. Ehrman's indictment of the Gospels as unreliable for reporting different locations and durations simply reveals that he has not spent enough time carefully considering these texts in the context of ancient literary conventions.
Not all differences in the Gospels are so easily addressed. But it is important to note that most of these impact little. Again, Ehrman knows this. For despite the hesitations he expresses toward the Gospels' reports of Jesus' death, he still concludes, "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate."11 Regarding the resurrection appearances to Jesus' disciples, he writes, "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after His crucifixion? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this."12
So, differences in the Gospels are clearly red herrings when Ehrman employs them in reference to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.
Challenge #4: The Problem of Selection:
Why Were the Four Gospels Included in Our New Testaments Selected and Not the Other Gospels That Were Floating Around in Antiquity?
The answer to this question is far more involved than can be fairly discussed here. One important criterion for the early church was that the book or letter had either been written by an apostle or one of their close colleagues. While other Gospels claimed to have been written by Thomas, Peter, Philip, Mary, Judas, and others, scholars are virtually unanimous in concluding that these Gospels were actual forgeries written sometime in the second and third centuries. The lone possible exception is Thomas, which some scholars believe was written in the latter part of the first century, although the evidence now suggests the end of the second century may be more likely.13
For Ehrman, the 27 books and letters in our present New Testament are there because at the end of the canon debates, the winners got to write the past, or at least determine which accounts of the past would be preserved. Ehrman is correct to an extent. But sometimes the winners deserve to win. Ehrman would do well to consider the comments of a prominent scholar on the subject of these "other Gospels" who writes,
[T]hese other accounts are interesting in the extreme and well worth reading. But they do not, as a rule, provide us with reliable historical information. They are all later than the Gospels of the New Testament and are filled with legendary, though intriguing, stories of the Son of God. . . . [I]f we want to know about the life of the historical Jesus, we are more or less restricted to using the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Interestingly, the scholar who wrote this statement is Bart Ehrman.14
When we look at the decisions pertaining to which Gospels to include in the New Testament, we observe that the ancient church got it right. This particular attack by Ehrman differs little from the others we have observed. They grab our attention on very important topics. However, in the end we learn that his ultimate conclusions consist mainly of smoke and mirrors rather than the findings of scholars. Ehrman's shock statements and excellent writing skills sell a lot of books. This is good for Ehrman and for his publishers. It is unfortunate, however, that many sincere people have been and will continue to be misled by them. On a positive side, Ehrman's books create opportunities for Christians to become educated on the issues upon which he touches and improve our ability to discuss the credibility of our faith, which is grounded in solid historical evidence.
So, if you like a good fish fry, you will enjoy Ehrman's red herrings on the Gospels. But readers should proceed with caution, since many who have taken his bait have gone off the path and into the woods where logic and sound historical method cannot protect them—and have shipwrecked their faith as a result.
1 Elsewhere, I have written extensively on the topic of historians and miracle claims. See chap. 2 in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010).
2 The first of these two debates took place at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on February 28, 2008, and may be viewed online at www.4truth.net/debate1. I had lost my voice the day of that debate and, consequently, am difficult to understand at times. Viewers may be more interested in our second debate which took place at Southern Evangelical Seminary on April 2, 2009, and may be viewed at www.4truth.net/debate. The second debate may also be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHA3K_6H0g.
3 Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them) (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 136. Also see Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011).
4 Papias, Fragments 1:4; 3:1–4, 7; 11; 15; 16:1.
5 Robert H. Gundry, "Trimming the Debate," in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 117 (n15).
6 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 609–20; Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 180–84.
7 See also Martin Hengel, Studies, 64–84, cited by Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1041.
8 Suetonius, Tacitus, Appian, and Dio Cassius. Additional sources that mention Augustus exist just as there are other sources in the early Christian literature that mention Jesus. For example, Paterculus wrote within 20 years of Augustus just as Paul penned his first letter within 20 years of Jesus and before the Gospels were written. However, these six sources that mention Augustus are the major sources used by historians given the breadth of knowledge they contain, just as the Gospels are the major sources on Jesus for the same reason.
9 See Ehrman in our debates at www.4truth.net/debate and www.4truth.net/debate1.
10 Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 151.
11 Bart D. Ehrman, The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, Part 2 of 2 (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2000), 162; cf. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford, 2008), 261–62.
12 Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 177.
13 Nicholas Perrin, Thomas: The Other Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 73–106, esp. 106; Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 67–77, esp. 77.
14 Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 151.