Disunity in the Bible? A Response to Bart Ehrman
- Andy Witherall
- Mar 30
- 11 min read
“What is the most significant discovery in the history of biblical studies?” This question was the focus of Dr Bart Ehrman’s final lecture before his retirement from the University of North Carolina in December 2025.1
As a New Testament scholar, Ehrman has had an uneasy relationship with Christianity. Raised by evangelical parents, Ehrman attended Moody Bible college as a professing Christian before renouncing his belief in God. Today, Ehrman identifies as an ‘agnostic-atheist’.2 For decades, Ehrman has popularised arguments against the reliability of the Bible, including alleged contradictions within the Gospels and criticisms of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. His books have sold in the millions, giving Christians plenty to engage with.
It may be expected, therefore, that Ehrman’s final speech sought to challenge, and not to defend, the Bible. After suggesting possible contenders for the most significant discovery in the history of biblical studies, including archeological findings and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ehrman gives his answer. The most revolutionary ‘discovery’ in the history of biblical studies, says Ehrman, “is that the Bible is not a single book.”3 What we call ‘the Bible’ today, Ehrman explains, was written by multiple authors, across different times, with varying perspectives and personal intentions. According to Ehrman, this means the Bible is inherently contradictory.
Ehrman appeals to different passages from both the Old and New Testaments drawing out, what he claims to be irreconcilable differences. These alleged discrepancies, he says, are essential for understanding the message of each individual author. Attempts to reconcile all the books undermine each author’s intention. If we want to understand the message of the biblical authors, we have to let go of the idea of a unified revelation from God.
This objection is of paramount importance because it attacks the very foundation of the Christian faith. If the Bible is unreliable then Christianity cannot be trusted. Christians need to be able to give a defense against this widely held objection.
An Important Point of Agreement
Christians can, of course, agree with Ehrman up to a point. Ehrman is correct that the Bible is a collection – it contains 66 books by about 40 authors, written over a period of approximately 1500 years. This must affect how we approach the Bible. I will highlight just two important principles.
It is important to understand a passage’s literary genre
As with any book collection, the Bible contains many kinds of literature. The Gospels serve as ancient biographies for the life of Christ providing historical records of actual events. Even regarding unusual stories such as Jesus’ miracles, the central one being the Resurrection, we are asked to believe they really happened. Towards the end of his Gospel, John writes:4
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The psalms, by contrast, are poetry and often use poetic imagery. When David says, “The Lord is my shepherd,”5 we are not to believe that David is literally a sheep! Within the Bible are books of philosophy, apocalyptic literature, letters written to churches, prophecy and law, or instruction, given to Israel. As we would not read a book of poems in the same way as we would read the biography of our favourite celebrity, so distinguishing between the genres of the books of the Bible is essential to understanding it correctly.
It is important to understand an author’s intention
Even within a particular literary genre, different authors may have specific intentions. Matthew, for example, wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience. He constantly refers back to Old Testament prophecies to show how Jesus is their fulfillment, and he emphasises the way Jesus’ life mirrors the history of ancient Israel. Where Israel had failed in their obedience to God’s law, Jesus succeeded, proving himself to be the Messiah.
Luke, by contrast, was written for a non-Jewish audience. Part of his concern is to show that Jesus’ has come for Gentiles, as well as for the outcast and the marginalised. Thus, he includes parables such as the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. His account of the conversion of Zacchaeus, a despised tax collector, ends with Jesus’ affirmation that “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost.”
Matthew and Luke are united in their ultimate aim – showing that Jesus is the Messiah – they also had individual emphases because of their difference audiences.
Assessing Ehrman’s Claims
My main concern with Ehrman’s argument is his assumption that multiple authorship must negate unity. The reader is forced to choose between them. Ehrman explains:6
[The Bible] looks like one book and, when you read a book, you expect it to be consistent. It doesn’t occur to you that the author is going to flat out contradict himself in the next page. You don’t expect it. And if you don’t expect it, you don’t look for it. If you don’t look for it, you don’t see it. Once you realise its 66 books, oh boy, does that open up things in a huge way.
The claim is that multiple authorship results in irreconcilable contradictions. While addressing every alleged contradiction in the Bible is beyond the scope of this article7, I would like to suggest four questions which can help us whenever we find an apparent discrepancy. Each of these stems from the fact the Bible is a collection of books. Under each question, where possible, I will consider an example from Ehrman’s speech.
1. What are the author’s intentions?
This was one of my ‘important principles’ above. The most important question one can ask when approaching any text is, ‘what did the writer intend to communicate to his readers?’ Is the writer speaking literally? Is he using metaphor? Could there be a deeper message he is trying to communicate?
In his lecture, Ehrman invited his listeners to read the two creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2 and to note the differences between them. The expectation is that one will uncover contradictory accounts which demonstrate they are two sources cobbled together, unable to be reconciled. It is ironic, in a lecture which stresses the importance of sensitivity to an author’s intentions, that Ehrman simply assumes both accounts are to be taken with the same level of literalness. Perhaps, however, one can discern a deeper message which allows for both Genesis 1 and 2 to be reconciled.
The big difference between the two accounts concerns the creation of man. Genesis 1 has man created at the end of creation, whereas in Genesis 2 the man is created before certain plants had grown. But, as theologian David Atkinson notes, there has been a shift in focus. Whereas Genesis 1 is concerned with creation itself, Genesis 2 starts a new section with a focus on “the place of human beings in God’s world”.8 At the heart of this chapter stands relationship. Human relationships with God are more intimate. Atkinson notes that, in Genesis 2, God is suddenly referred to by the personal name Yahweh. It is also important to note that the plants referred to in Genesis 25 – “bush of the field […] small plant of the field” – are specific kinds of plants. There is no contradiction with the claim of Genesis 1 that vegetation was created before humankind.
Mirroring the creation order in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 explores man’s relationship to land and vegetation (v. 15-17), the animals (v. 18-20) and other people (v. 21-25). Genesis 3 then explores the undoing of each of these relationships, culminating in the loss of relationship with God Himself as Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden (Gen. 3:24). This serves to introduce the theme of God’s grace as He promises a Saviour (Gen. 3:15) and clothes Adam and Eve by shedding the blood of an animal (Gen. 3:21). Considering the intention of the author in Genesis 2 and 3 thus brings to the fore one of the most central and unifying truths running through the whole Bible: that God is merciful and extends mercy via the shedding of blood.
When wrestling with an apparent contradiction, therefore, it is good to ask, ‘What did the author intend and am I reading this passage the right way?’
2. Does Additional Information Equal a Contradiction?
Another challenge which multiple authorship brings concerns different information surrounding the same event. In and of themselves, different details do nothing to undermine biblical unity. In his lecture, Ehrman considers the resurrection accounts, highlighting some interesting differences. How many women went to the tomb, and which ones were they? When was the stone rolled away? Who did they see there and what did they do?
Differences amongst the Gospels are to be expected. Different authors will have their own memories and will have utilised different sources. Each one will have a different angle to take and a slightly different message to share. Luke names more women who went to the tomb than Matthew does. This does not mean there is a contradiction, only that Luke provides a bit more information. In the same way, each of the other apparent discrepancies that Ehrman highlights can be reconciled.
Ehrman is correct to say that we want to preserve the message of each author, but he is wrong to imply that these cannot be brought together into a greater message on which each writer stands united.
3. Is there progression across different texts?
Although this was not included in Ehrman’s speech, it is worth mentioning because people sometimes argue for a contradiction when instead there is a progression. This often arises when comparing verses from the Old and New Testaments. For example, Bible scholar, Dr. Steven DiMattei, asks whether we should follow the principle of lex talionis - the law of retaliation - or adhere to Jesus’ command to ‘turn the other cheek.’ DiMattei compares Exodus 21:12-24 and Matthew 5:39-41. At face value these verses appear to contradict one another. DiMattei writes:9
It would be ridiculous to think that cultures living millennia later, in different geopolitical and religious worlds, would still employ this system of equal retaliation. Add to this the eschatological worldview, which impregnated 1st century Judaism and under which Christianity was born, and it’s not too difficult to understand the utter contradictory positions between the Hebrew Bible’s lex talionis and the Gospel’s “offer the other cheek” policy.
In his argument, DiMattei fails to acknowledge the wider context. Jesus introduces this section by clarifying its relationship to the Mosaic Law. He says, ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”10 Jesus is not contradicting the Law but offering a fulfilment of it. He unpacks the heart of the law and also contrasts the demands of judicial law in a theocracy (a nation ruled under God according to God’s law) with how individual people should respond within personal feuds.
At face value there appears to be a contradiction. A careful reading of the passage in Matthew is enough to see that this is not actually the case.
4. Are we Using Even Standards?
It is true that some verses within Scripture are harder to reconcile than others. As someone committed to the inerrancy of the Bible (the conviction that the Bible had not errors when originally given), I do not believe there are genuine contradictions within the Bible. However, if we do find an apparent inconsistency that troubles us, it is worth asking what the implications are for the trustworthiness of the Bible.
In his lecture, Ehrman suggests a contradiction exists between the synoptic Gospel’s account of when Jesus was crucified, which was the day of Passover, and the Gospel of John which seems to be the day before Passover. Whilst answers may be given for this difficulty, the question remains what effect this has on the overall claim that Jesus was crucified. Consider the secular example of Alexander the Great. Sources differ on whether he died on 10th or 11th June 323 BC. However this does nothing to cast doubt upon the historical certainty of Alexander the Great’s life and conquests. By contrast, when it comes to difficult passages within the Bible, like the date of Jesus’ crucifixion, many people find it to be evidence that the overall accounts are untrustworthy.
It is important to ask whether a difficult detail is enough to derail the overall claim that Jesus died and rose again on the third day and whether we would use the same standards for a non-biblical historical figure.
Multiple authorship and the Unity of Scripture
Ehrman argues that the Bible, being a collection of books, is fragmentary and contradictory and therefore unreliable. His modus operandi is to look at specific details and ignore the big picture. I am not saying that the details do not matter - on the contrary, a text that is filled with contradictions would not be a trustworthy source. However, I believe the opposite point to Ehrman’s can be made: that, given the Bible is a collection of books, it contains such remarkable unity in both detail and the overall narrative that it points beyond the human authors to a single divine Author. This unity can be seen on multiple levels.
Unity in the Big Picture
As one reads the Bible, one sees the unfolding of God’s great story of redemption, each individual book making its own contribution to the whole. From the corruption of God’s perfect world through human sin, we have the promise of a Saviour as early as Genesis 3:15. We read of the forming of God’s people through whom the Saviour will come, the eventual arrival of Jesus culminating in His redemptive work upon the cross. Ultimately the Bible takes us beyond our current world to a new heavens and a new earth - the restoration of God’s perfect world. The Bible story is one of perfect creation, fallen humanity, God’s redemption, and a return to perfection for those who trust in Jesus.
Unity Within Themes
A more detailed look at the Bible reveals many themes from beginning to end which are integral to the big picture. There is the theme of grace through sacrifice. In Genesis 3:21 we read of God clothing Adam and Eve with animal skins after they had disobeyed him. His mercy is shown through the shed blood of an animal. This anticipates the sacrificial system given to the people which, in turn, is a foreshadowing of the ultimate, once for all sacrifice given by Christ on the cross.
There is the theme of prophetic fulfilment. There are more than 300 prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament that were fulfilled within the earthly life of Jesus.11 Other prophecies concern events, many of which have been fulfilled, others which Christians are told to be prepared for.
There is the theme of covenant - that God works in covenant with His people, culminating in the new covenant that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20) which itself was prophesied in the Old Testament (Jer. 31:31-34).
Many other themes could be mentioned, with each running through the pages of the Bible and bringing a strong sense of unity.
Unity with Details
The Bible is often attacked by pointing to apparent contradictions in the detail of the text. This article has considered just a couple of these. Each one must be taken in turn - however many can be resolved by asking some of the questions that have been suggested regarding genre, authorial intent and theological progression.
How Significant is the “Discovery” that the Bible is a Collection of Books?
Ehrman is correct in highlighting the importance of recognising that the Bible is not simply a single book. In my view, he is mistaken in his suggestion that this leaves us with an inconsistent and contradictory book which compromises its unity. It is my contention that the Bible remains a unified whole in both its overarching narrative, its major themes and its smaller details. Of these three, Ehrman only engages with the third. This paints a misleading picture of the Bible as a fragmentary collection.
I believe that the difficult passages can often be resolved by asking right questions of the text and that none affect the unity of the Bible as a whole in terms of its broader narrative and its themes. Given that the Bible is a collection of books, written over 1500 years by multiple different authors, the unity that we find within them is astonishing. Whereas Ehrman appeals to its multiple authorship to point us away from its reliability, I believe the harmony with the text points us towards its divine Author.
Endnotes
1. The full lecture can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlxhhS_Tf8
3. Ehrman, B. (2025) The Last Lecture: Bart Ehrman’s Retirement Lecture from UNC, 7 December. YouTube video, 2 h ? m. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlxhhS_Tf8
4. John 20:30-31
5. Psalm 23:1
6. Ehrman, B (2025)
7. A helpful resource which does address apparent contradictions is When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Norman Howe.
8. Atkinson, D. (1990) The Message of Genesis Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, p. 54
10. Matthew 5:17
11. GotQuestions.org (n.d.) How many prophecies did Jesus fulfill? Available at: https://www.gotquestions.org/prophecies-of-Jesus.html
Comments