Other than the fact that his surname is an anagram of Herman I didn’t really know who Ehrman was, or much about him. But luckily, Stephen Colbert, America’s most trusted news hound, has interviewed him…
So now I know all about him. And that he’s wrong.
The answer is that he’s an atheist writer who questions the validity of the claims that the gospels represent an accurate history of who Jesus is.
Author: Nathan Campbell
Nathan runs St Eutychus. He is currently a student at the Queensland Theological College. In a previous professional life he worked in public relations for an economic development and tourism marketing organisation. He is married to Robyn. He likes coffee and the internet.
Nathan has produced 3153 articles.
Check out my photos 
Or 
Watch my videos 
Here's my 
Follow me on 
Connect with me on
Be my friend on
Check out my 
nm(dot)campbell(at)
1Brian
wrote on 9 November 2009 at 13:55
Just a brief point, but unless something has changed very recently, Mr. Erhman is an agnostic and not an atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
If you are ever inclined to read something about higher criticism, I would encourage you try reading at least one of his works. Jesus Interrupted or Misquoting Jesus would be good works to check out. He covers his move from evangelical to agnostic in the book God's Problem.
2Nathan
wrote on 9 November 2009 at 14:13
Hi Brian,
You may be right. It's been a couple of days since I watched this video – I just haven't had time to post it. I'll rewatch it in the morning and correct myself if I'm wrong…
3Tim
wrote on 9 November 2009 at 21:57
You've posted this before ;)
4Nathan
wrote on 9 November 2009 at 23:45
Same guy, same interviewer… different episode and different interview…
5Andrew
wrote on 10 November 2009 at 8:49
I've listened to a lecture he gave ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397006836... ) and he is actually a lot wittier than he comes across here. I enjoyed the lecture – he didn't exactly say anything I didn't already know, nor that couldn't be found by looking in the margin of a modern bible translation. The problem I have is that he overplaying the manuscript differences – most of them are insignificant (things like spelling mistakes etc) and because of the vast amount of manuscripts we can compare and eliminate most of the errors.