Here's a rare sight: A host of a major television show forcefully defending the Bible and central tenets of Christianity. It happened recently on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, when host Stephen Colbert - in his own inimitable way - rebutted the assertions of Bart Ehrman, a self-described "happy agnostic" who has written a number of books attempting to discredit the Bible and the central beliefs of Christianity.
By the time the interview was finished, the "happy agnostic" Ehrman wasn't looking too happy. Viewers with an interest in Christian apologetics will surely enjoy this one. (Click for video.)
Here's a transcript of a highlight:
EHRMAN: … The Bible shows that, in fact, some of the earliest teachings of Jesus aren’t what became the standard doctrines of Christianity.
COLBERT: What are you talking about?
EHRMAN: Well, things like –
COLBERT: Standard doctrine of Christianity: "I believe in God, the Almighty Father, maker of heaven and earth." That kind of stuff?
EHRMAN (nodding): That kind of stuff. That, in fact, doctrines like the divinity of Christ, the Trinity - these were later formulations that weren’t the original teachings.
COLBERT: What are you talking about? Jesus was the Son of God! Even Jesus recognizes that. Do you ever read the Gospel of John ever?
EHRMAN: Yeah –
COLBERT: Do you ever read the Gospel of John?
EHRMAN: Yeah –
COLBERT: Does Jesus say he’s the Son of God in there?
EHRMAN (stumbling): Uh, Jesus says –
COLBERT (forcefully interrupting): Does Jesus say he’s the Son of God in the Gospel of John?
EHRMAN: Jesus actually says he’s divine in the Gospel of John.
COLBERT: He says, "I and the Father are One" in the Gospel of John.
EHRMAN: Yes. He does.
COLBERT: I accept your apology.
EHRMAN: O.K.
Notice that Colbert completely rebuts Ehrman's assertion that the doctrine of Christ's divinity was a "later formulation"!
Later in the interview, Ehrman tries to backpedal and cover for himself by saying, "He's (Jesus is) not God in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; only in John." That's not true either. There are several passages in the Gospels in which Jesus' divinity is declared. Take Matthew 26 with Jesus in front of the high priests and the Sanhedrin:
63 ...Then the high priest said to him, "I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him in reply, "You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'" 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what is your opinion?" They said in reply, "He deserves to die!"
What is the "blasphemy" which earned Jesus' death sentence? That his reference to Daniel 7:13 to himself as "the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power" and "coming on the clouds of heaven" made himself equal with God. (Read also the informative "Making Himself Equal with God" by John McArthur.)
There's a lot more that can be said about the interview. (Especially Colbert's "What's the son of a duck? A duck!")
Read more about the awful Ehrman in a December 2006 NB post I wrote.
(HT: American Papist)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Does EHRMAN know he was SERVED!!!! Wow! The elephant!
April 16, 2009 - 22:01 ET by pahuberGreat video! Almost makes me like Colbert! Yes, the gospels are 4 different takes on the life of Christ. The amazing thing is how they all line up so well.... not the minor discrepancies!
Bravo!
BTW... this Ehrman is discussing such simplistically answerable questions from any first quarter Bible class.
Colbert: 1
Ehrman: 0
Colbert is an Irish Catholic
April 17, 2009 - 19:08 ET by PopularTechFYI
Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket"
It only leaves me wondering, 'what's the catch?'
April 16, 2009 - 22:06 ET by Calypso JonesI don't necessarily believe that Colbert is defending the Bible or Christianity. It looks more like mockery to me.
Hi Mearline, my wife does not find it reverent either... but!
April 16, 2009 - 22:18 ET by pahuberThe gospels are 4 different takes on what 4 different disciples recorded concerning Christ. The elephant parable is like that in each Gospel. Four different people in the pit give their interpretation of the elephant.
Minor discrepencies yet recording the same Truth!
IOW's Colbert served this pompous idiot.
Erhman, would value from attending any Bible College or Seminary...these things are easily answered the first year.
pahuber
Hey, Mearline ...
April 16, 2009 - 22:19 ET by Dave PierreWhat's clear from the segment is that Colbert did some homework before the interview. He knew what Ehrman was about; Colbert had him on the show in 2006 also.
The responses he gave required some thought ahead of time. The mocking tone is Colbert's regular schtick, and much of it is directed at Ehrman.
Maybe you can check out the video again?
Cheers.
Elephant Story, Show prep..i understand,
April 16, 2009 - 22:43 ET by Calypso JonesMr. Ehrdman would benefit from just reading the bible with an open mind rather than his agenda driven closed mind. I just don't think that patting Colbert on the back for a feeble attempt aimed at showing up his guest makes Colbert any sort of a christian apologist. (I realize that is not what the reporter is attempting. I'm just saying, I still don't care for the guy)
You're in good company... my wife does not like him either...
April 16, 2009 - 22:52 ET by pahuberMe... I found this to be very amusing, but understand many do not... I am but a man. Jesus is Lord.
pahuber
In this case, I think our troll further down the page is right.
April 17, 2009 - 07:14 ET by jakewashereColbert wasn't being serious about "defending his faith" at all. His faith doesn't have (forgive me) a goddamn thing to do with what happened in that clip. He was just trying to be an @$$hole to this Ehrman fellow and catch him in a contradiction, because that's clearly what he thinks Bill O'Reilly would have done.
Steve may be a Catholic, but he's alwats struck me as more the Nancy Pelosi / Edward Kennedy brand of Catholic than the Joseph Ratzinger kind.
Having some experience with this...
April 17, 2009 - 09:05 ET by Mike Bratton...I can tell you that it's more that a bit possible that Colbert was using a comedic "character" to make a legitimate point.
Only Colbert can say for sure.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Good research
April 17, 2009 - 09:35 ET by slickwillie2001Yes obviously this was researched, but don't think Colbert (or Stewart, or Leno, etc) do any of this themselves. They have a large staff of comedy writers and 'researchers' that do this stuff, and when the hosts tape their sessions they use teleprompters to tell them their lines. The shows are done live but what is put on the TV is an edited version.
If that was a defence of the Bible....
April 17, 2009 - 12:09 ET by David DeCarlo...Arnold Swarzenegger is a conservative Republican.
I just hope Colbert never defends me!
I only like Colbert...
April 16, 2009 - 22:25 ET by AgentAmerican...because Rush played on his show.
2010: A GOP Hill
Jesus is I AM
April 16, 2009 - 22:44 ET by suburbaniteJesus referred to himself as God – I AM – at least once in
each gospel. From Green’s Literal
Translation (LITV):
Mathew 14:27 - But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying,
Be comforted! I AM! Do not fear.
Mark 6:50 - For all saw Him, and were troubled. And
immediately He spoke to them and said to them, Have courage. I AM! Do not fear.
Mark 14:62 - And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son
of man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of the
heaven.
Luke 22:70 - And they all said, Then are you the Son of God?
And He said to them, You say it , because I AM!
Luke 4:26 - Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to
you.
John 6:20 - But He said to them, I AM! Do not fear.
John 8:24 - Therefore, I said to you that you will die in
your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.
John 8:28 - Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the
Son of man, then you will know that I AM; and from Myself I do nothing; but as
My Father taught Me, these things I speak.
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you,
before Abraham came into being, I AM.
John 13:13 - You call Me the Teacher, and, the Lord. And you
say well, for I AM.
John 13:19 - From this time I tell you before it happens,
that when it happens you may believe that I AM.
John 18:5 - They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus
said to them, I AM! And Judas, the one betraying Him, also stood with them.
John 18:6 - Then when He said to them, I AM, they departed
into the rear and fell to the ground.
John 18:8 - Jesus answered, I told you that I AM; then if
you seek Me, allow these to depart,
"Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way" Triumph
He's mocking this guy, for
April 16, 2009 - 22:46 ET by balboaHe's mocking this guy, for sure, by countering every argument he has. Colbert was raised Irish-Catholic, is no dummy, so I'm sure he did some solid research.
And...it was very funny.
April 16, 2009 - 22:47 ET by balboaAnd...it was very funny. He's great.
Colbert is sneaky
April 17, 2009 - 00:07 ET by ImAllRightHe knew to pick John, because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke there is very clear differences in the text. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke show a very Jewish interpretation of Jesus with a basis of Greek tactics in order to build HIS kingdom. In many instances, Jesus is viewed more as a prohpet of G-d sent to save the Jews from the Romans, and to set up the messianic kingdom. Since he failed in one (Roman Empire stood for 400 more years) and has yet to return for the other, the Jews feel that they are right and will often point to points of Luke such as speaking of the "delay" in the Christ's return as well as the Kingdom of G-d being within YOU.
John in fact DOES clearly state that Jesus is divine. Nobody would even try to deny that.
Colbert's whole schtick is to get his guest into uncomfortable surroundings by throwing questions at them that either make no sense or set it up in a way that there is only one answer, regardless of if that answer coincided with what the guest is there for.
Colbert know's the difference between John and the other 3 and chose accordingly as he was the one to bring up John, not the guest.
That's the risk of going on his show.
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan
A few corrections.
April 17, 2009 - 08:45 ET by Mike Bratton"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke show a very Jewish interpretation of Jesus with a basis of Greek tactics in order to build HIS kingdom."
Those four Gospels were written for a variety of audiences: Matthew's was primarily a Jewish audience, Mark's was primarily Roman, Luke's was primarily Greek, and John's was Gentiles in general, and Gentile believers in particular.
"In many instances, Jesus is viewed more as a prohpet of G-d sent to save the Jews from the Romans, and to set up the messianic kingdom."
Not by the writers, which renders your next observation inert.
"Since he failed in one (Roman Empire stood for 400 more years) and has yet to return for the other, the Jews feel that they are right and will often point to points of Luke such as speaking of the "delay" in the Christ's return as well as the Kingdom of G-d being within YOU."
This is an unfortunate, central error on the part of Judaism, and those of us who are Christians look forward to the day when that error will be abandoned. Jesus, being God, never "failed" at anything.
"John in fact DOES clearly state that Jesus is divine. Nobody would even try to deny that."
As do each of the other three Gospel accounts. And the remainder of the New Testament. And the Old Testament, as well.
Hope that helps.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
I'm certainly not a
April 16, 2009 - 23:19 ET by ApacheI'm certainly not a religious scholar nor an avid Colbert Report viewer but that was pretty good. Even that audience loved it. I have always considered him the funny part of the daily show when he was on that. Lost track after he left and the Daily Show became a serious version of the MSNBC comedy network. Plus who can forget "Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law". Well most can, but I liked it. This was a smart bit of comedy and the author didn't know what hit him.
Oh my gerd...
April 17, 2009 - 02:43 ET by clickerIt's been a while since I commented here, but I had to say something. Hilarious! I'm not referring to Colbert, because he is continuously hysterical minute by minute, hour by hour. But it's even more amusing that not only do you who are makng the comments (save one) not realize that Stephen Colbert is completely in character when he acts (literally) like this, but that a post on this site, by one of your contributors, actually praises him for defending religion. If you watched him regularly (I would say even occasionally), you would realize that he is indeed mocking the bluster and obstinance of the religious that the author is criticizing. He's playing a part, people! The inherent contradictions in the Bible, the inerrant word of god, are a joke, and his O'Reilly imitation is spot on and enhances the punch line. The reason the audience is laughing, and the author is being so passive is because they get it. Wow, you guys make me laugh...
Sure he is in character and
April 17, 2009 - 09:29 ET by ApacheSure he is in character and sure he will likely apply the same tactics to any religious scholar he has on the show. But you are simply exposing your own bias and ignorance of the subject. I think Colbert actually understands his job is to be funny and provocative. Not simply a left wing lap dog with added smirks like John Stewart. I think this segment is very South Park.
The Bible
April 17, 2009 - 02:48 ET by williams411You know, I've heard the bible is a pretty decent book but I've never checked it out for myself. What kind of reviews did it get when it first came out?
best seller
April 17, 2009 - 09:22 ET by ArcherBIt's the number one best seller in history and has been translated into more languages that any other book.
Got any more questions?
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
The Author
April 17, 2009 - 10:07 ET by williams411Did the author of the bible write any other books that I should look into?
Trix are for kids, fox is for fools
No other books
April 17, 2009 - 10:15 ET by Agnosticbut a sequal was made - The Life of Brian :)
http://www.mwscomp.c...
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
williams411 ~ rather than come here and troll, you should
April 17, 2009 - 12:14 ET by pahubertry and read the all time #1 bestseller.
ha
April 17, 2009 - 11:49 ET by candanceIt wasn't very popular when it first came out, especially among the establishment. Many of the authors (old and new testament) were executed for preaching heresy, inciting revolution, or just plain being annoying.
Each of the four gospels sounds a little different because they were written for different audiences. Matthew's gospel was written for Jewish people to show how the old prophesies and Jewish laws mirrored Christ. The gospel of Mark was written for Roman converts to explain the importance of things like Passover and why Christ was so offensive to Jewish leaders. Luke wrote his gospel to affirm that the miracles and stories people had heard were really true, and to emphasize his friendships with various people. These writers had little interest in defending Christ's divinity because they thought it was kind of implied with him raising from the dead and being the savior of the world.
John's gospel was indeed the last written. By then Christianity had started catching on, but others had started jumping on the bandwagon coming up with their own version of it and baptising people incorrectly. Thus John wrote a "smackdown" of these imposters to make it obvious that Jesus was divine.
Much of the rest of the new testament involves letters the apostles wrote to various churches who were slipping into false ideas. Within the very lifetimes of the apostles, they were seeing Christianity get hijacked and having to rebutt people.
Of course Ehrman is not going to admit to all of that though.
I didn't watch the segment,
April 17, 2009 - 03:17 ET by eaglescout1998I didn't watch the segment, but it is possible that Colbert may have been "in character".
Oh my gerd...part deux
April 17, 2009 - 03:22 ET by clickerI'm sorry. The more I read this post, the more my face hurts from laughing. Your poster (Mr. Pierre...I'm goning to read his bio right now to find out where his sense of humor went) actually highlighted the words 'I accept your apology,' as if it was some triumphant Coup de grace for Ehrman to make him feel better about being embarrassed by Colbert's superior biblical knowledge. Do a search on colbertnation.com for 'I accept your apology' and watch the videos that result. Please. You'll see that this is one of his signature 'I'm being a comedian' lines. That he's making fun of himself, his adopted (and ridiculous) character. And you'll laugh!
Ditto, Clicker...
April 17, 2009 - 09:09 ET by trak65I also did a double take and had to check that it wasn't April 1st. Colbert is 100% about mocking commentators of the Right. Next we'll have posts about the Church Lady "marvelously taking people to task for their satanic red clothing." Puh-lease!
Doesn't matte
April 17, 2009 - 09:26 ET by ArcherBIn character or not, he did hand it to this guy. I don't know if I'd say he is mocking Christianity as he would have just said something like, "So, does it bother you that you will burn in hell for all eternity?" or something similar.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Yes I think he did "South
April 17, 2009 - 09:46 ET by ApacheYes I think he did "South Park" the guy. My term I guess. He probably is sympathetic to the author's view but was able to suspend his bias to expose the absurdity in the author's comments and go for the resulting comedy. Compare that to your typical left wing comedic hacks that won't go for a joke that is at the expense of their own ideology and bias. Colbert can sail right past them in popularity with that tact.
Quite possible he was in
April 17, 2009 - 05:38 ET by taterQuite possible he was in character but as someone stated he was raised Catholic. So I'm guessing he has read the Bible and knows where the Church stands in regards to who Jesus is.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Colbert is an atheist, but schooled in the tenets...
April 17, 2009 - 11:08 ET by farstar99and even he sees the guy is a scam artist. He was in character, but probably had to point this out because if you discount Christ's own perception of His identity, he ceases to become a target and so do His followers.
Colbert isn't an atheist
April 17, 2009 - 11:39 ET by BosTarusHe's said so in the past-he's still a practicing catholic... in fact, he often still has ashes on his forehead on ash wednesday. Sure that could be makeup, but when he's not in character he has still spoken about his religious upbringing and current faith. He's also been pretty hard on previous guests who were critical of faith. It may be a character-but there is definitely truth underneath the act.
I must be missing something
April 17, 2009 - 11:25 ET by candanceColbert wasn't mocking Ehrman, he was mocking Christians for using the Bible to explain the Bible. He was playing up the stereotype of a condescending believer. The part about the elephant was cool, but it was too little too late. I especially didn't like his "joke" about Jews misrepresenting Jesus.
Here's the thing. The way to
April 17, 2009 - 12:42 ET by Ken ShepherdHere's the thing.
The way to counter Ehrman is to point out his premises are all wet.To do that, you have to go into the texts of Scripture to show how he's interpreting them incorrectly. He claims Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no divinity claim. That may be true in the sense that there is no explicit outright claim where Jesus says, "Hey, guys, I'm God."
But the whole narrative of all three gospels show Jesus as on a divine mandate and ministry and culminate in crucifixion and resurrection. Ehrman is dense to see otherwise in the gospel narratives.
you are correct about that Ken
April 17, 2009 - 14:21 ET by candanceEach of the three early gospels do contain references to Jesus being divine, and Ehrman is being plain dishonest to say otherwise.
Co bares nothing
April 17, 2009 - 11:37 ET by carolina09After catching a few minutes of Colbert's Christmas Special, I would have to believe he was only in character and making no statement of faith. The Special was lurid, blasphemous and sacrilegious. The spectacle of a Catholic and a Jew mocking Mary and the Trinity was just appalling. There's no Christian behind that poker face. He's no friend.
Look...
April 17, 2009 - 11:39 ET by Mike SargentColbert is never, ever out of character. At any point, ever.
That said, Colbert is the toughest interview on TV. He's smart, fast on his feet, and a thoughtful person. Yes, his satire can be offensive; but in this instance, he made Ehrman look like a fool.
Also, Ehrman doesn't actually name any contradictions. His example of the "conflicting reports" of the gospels is unfounded, for this reason: At no point does any gospel account say that it is comprehensive. Think about that. Is it possible that Jesus would be in agony (from the beating he had recieved, and from being crucified...), and be concerned for his mother? Is it possible that he asked God to forgive his murderers, and also have said "Into thy hands I commend my spirit" at some other point?
Ehrman's book simply does not contain a very well-thought-out premise. Colbert just schooled him on it.
Excellent point. Plus, even
April 17, 2009 - 12:18 ET by Ken ShepherdExcellent point. Plus, even in character he made Ehrman look uncomfortable and uncertain, rather than use his character to blatantly mock orthodox Christian belief. The result is you have many people seeing this and seeing exactly what you and I see: Ehrman being schooled and at the hands of what should be a fun, soft comedy show interview.
By contrast, when Ehrman goes on NPR and other news outlets, he gets treated like some ground-breaking scholar.
I honestly do not understand
April 17, 2009 - 11:49 ET by OxyCon...what the motivation is for all of these Atheists attacking Christianity. What motivates these people to make movies and write books in which they try their best to mock Christians? It certainly isn't money because this stuff doesn't sell.
And why do these Godless people always attack Christians? Will any of them ever have the guts to attack Islam? I doubt it. You'd never see Bill Mahar make a feature length film attacking Islam because he doesn't have gonads.
playing the devil's advocate here
April 18, 2009 - 13:59 ET by BosTarusThe last third of Bill Maher's movie is about Islam... and its not a particularly flattering analysis. Not that I'm a fan of the movie, but it was attacking all faith, not just Christianity.
Wrong
April 17, 2009 - 15:22 ET by CyranoColbert's character defended the Bible and Christ's divinity. He's playing a role, guys.
I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!