Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Aractus]

It's a great video; anyone who watches/listens to this video cannot possibly have any confidence in "Biblical" Christianity:

No, there's hardly anything (at least in the first 4 or 5 minutes I just listened to) that Christians would need to be worried over. Ehrman 's hypotheses are well outside of mainstream scholarship, and much of what he focuses on in these rants are well outside his area of expertise. Bart's idea of systemic textual recension of the gospels is all but disproved by now. Yes the Pentateuch's systemic textual recension is (conversely) all but an accepted fact, but I don't think people understand that is based on textual scholarship of the OT writings, whereas NT textual scholarship (which is not Bart's area anyway) discredits this idea on its own - with only a handful of exceptions (Mark 16:9-20 as an example). It's certainly not systemic as is claimed by Bart, that fact alone is disproved by the second century manuscripts that exist of Luke and John. If they had been systemically modified where are the earlier editions? Or in absense of this, where is the textual scholarship that has identified the hand of multiple authors as is the case with the Pentateuch. If they haven't found it now, in Greek a relatively easy language to study being that it's a language still used today, and yet scholars can identify it in the Pentateuch written in Hebrew - which is one of the most difficult languages of the ancient world to decipher, then they aren't going to find it.

He's a scholar. He should be able to point to evidence for his claims, that should be no problem for him if his claims have a basis in modern scholarship. But wouldn't you know it, he never does. He behaves as if he's his own evidence: but he isn't qualified to make those assessments of Greek anyway! By that what I mean is that it's not his area of study, and he hasn't published any peer-review literature on THAT topic. He's published things to do with early Christianity and Paul, and on that he is qualified.

Here's a comment from another scholar (Dr Ben Witherington) which perfectly captures what I think about Bart:

"If only he could be equally honest and admit that in his scholarship he is trying now to deconstruct orthodox Christianity which he once embraced, rather than do 'value-neutral' text criticism. In my own view, he has attempted this deconstruction on the basis of very flimsy evidence-- textual variants which do not prove what he wants them to prove."