Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor: Who Wrote the Gospels?

Introduction: The Question of Gospel Authorship

The canonical Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — are central texts in Christianity. But among biblical scholars, a perennial and contested question is: who really composed them? That question matters, because authorship relates to how close to the events and eyewitnesses the texts may be; to their historical reliability; and to how we interpret their authority.

Two prominent voices in modern scholarship who engage (directly or indirectly) with this question are Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor. While not always pitted against one another in direct debate on Gospel authorship, their different emphases and outlooks help illustrate the spectrum of modern critical views.

---

Bart Ehrman: Skepticism about Traditional Authorship

Background

Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, textual critic, and public intellectual. He holds a PhD from Princeton in New Testament, and teaches at the University of North Carolina. He is well known for popular works such as Misquoting Jesus (2005) and Forged: Writing in the Name of God (2011). Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

Ehrman approaches the Gospels from a skeptical-critical perspective: while he does not reject their entire value, he often emphasizes textual uncertainty, authorial anonymity, and the intervening processes of oral tradition, redaction, and possibly pseudepigraphy.

Key Claims & Arguments

1. Anonymity of the Gospels
   Ehrman frequently highlights that none of the canonical Gospels is signed in its text or interiorly claims “I, Matthew” or “I, John” etc. He argues that the attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John occurred later in Christian tradition. Bart Ehrman Courses Online+4Ehrman Project+4The Bart Ehrman Blog+4

2. Late Composition & Distance
   He places the production of the Gospels several decades after Jesus’s life (often 40–60 years later), meaning firsthand witnesses would be few or gone. Ehrman Project+3J. Joel Edmund Anderson+3The Bart Ehrman Blog+3 He emphasizes that oral traditions, memory, and community retelling can introduce modifications over time. The Bart Ehrman Blog+1

3. Tradition vs. Historical Certainty
   Ehrman is cautious about relying on early church tradition (e.g. Church Fathers) to confirm authorship. He often argues that such attributions reflect theological or ecclesiastical interests, not necessarily historical certainty. The Bart Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Project+2

4. Potential Pseudepigraphy / Forgery
   In his book Forged, Ehrman suggests that a number of New Testament books (including the Gospels) may have been written under the names of apostles or prominent figures to lend them authority. He treats such attributions as potentially “forged” in the ancient sense (that is, written under a name not by the person bearing it). Wikipedia+2Ehrman Project+2

5. Textual and Source Complexity
   Ehrman draws attention to the literary and redaction-critical features of the Gospels: sources behind them (e.g. Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke), editorial insertions, harmonizations, and discrepancies among the Gospels as evidence of evolving tradition. The Bart Ehrman Blog+2The Bart Ehrman Blog+2

Strengths & Challenges of Ehrman’s View

Strengths

• Ehrman’s framework is careful to reflect the limitations and uncertainties inherent in ancient textual transmission.

• He presses scholars and readers to reckon with differences among texts, variant manuscripts, and redactional layers.

• His public engagement brings critical scholarship into broader discussion.

Challenges / Critiques

• Some critics argue he overemphasizes skepticism and underestimates how tradition preservation can work in ancient settings.

• Some forms of internal coherence, early attestation, and early Christian use of the Gospels are cited by defenders of traditional attribution (though Ehrman would contest how strong that evidence is).

• The notion of “forgery” can be provocative or misinterpreted; the ancient practice of pseudepigraphy is disputed, and not every attribution is necessarily deceptive.

---

James D. Tabor: Contextual Reconstruction & Family‑Centered Hypotheses

Background

James D. Tabor is a scholar of Christian origins, early Judaism, and ancient texts. He taught for decades at UNC Charlotte, has a PhD from the University of Chicago, and is well known for books such as The Jesus Dynasty and Paul and Jesus. Wikipedia+2Simon & Schuster+2 His work often weaves textual study, historical reconstruction, and archaeological insights.

Unlike Ehrman, Tabor is less a polemical skeptic and more an imaginative historian seeking new angles and hypotheses within the data.

His Approach to Gospel Authorship (and Related Questions)

While Tabor does not focus exclusively on “who wrote the Gospels” in the same way Ehrman does, several aspects of his thinking bear on the question:

1. Historical Reconstruction & Contextual Hypotheses
   Tabor tries to reconstruct the early Jesus movement, the role of Jesus’ family (especially his brother James), and how power dynamics (e.g. James, Peter, Paul) may have shaped which texts were preserved or emphasized. huji.academia.edu+3Simon & Schuster+3Wikipedia+3

2. Critical But Open to Tradition
   Tabor is critical of easy assumptions but more willing than Ehrman to entertain that some Gospel traditions or attributions may reflect more than pure invention. He sometimes leans toward middle paths: that the Gospels emerged in communities with memory of traditions and that attribution may have a basis (though not always straightforward). The Bart Ehrman Blog

3. Questioning Conventional Models (e.g. Q, Source Theory)
   Tabor has questioned or offered alternatives to standard source-critical constructs like the Q (“Quelle”) hypothesis for the Synoptics. He sometimes argues that we should not assume lost documents behind the Synoptics without stronger evidence. Ordinary Life Extrao

4. The Role of the Jerusalem / James Tradition
   In The Jesus Dynasty, Tabor advances the idea that after Jesus’s death, his brother James and Jesus’s family played a central role in early leadership, and that subsequent Christian trajectories (such as Pauline Christianity) suppressed or sidelined that tradition. While this is more about ecclesial politics than Gospel authorship per se, it influences how Tabor sees which texts might have been favored, transmitted, or preserved. Simon & Schuster+1

Strengths & Challenges of Tabor’s View

Strengths

• Tabor’s approach adds texture and imaginative reconstruction, reminding us that the early Christian movement was messy, contested, and shaped by social dynamics.

• He encourages critical thinking about what has been taken for granted in the history of scholarship (e.g. Q, authorial attribution).

• His interdisciplinary interests (archaeology, textual, historical) broaden the scope of inquiry.

Challenges / Critiques

• Some of Tabor’s speculative reconstructions (e.g. strong emphasis on family line, marginal traditions) go beyond what the textual and historical evidence can firmly support.

• His proposals tend to be more tentative or suggestive rather than definitive: they highlight possibilities, not certainties.

• Because he does not always deeply engage (in every case) with detailed textual-critical counterarguments, critics may regard some of his claims as under-argued.

---

Comparing and Contrasting Ehrman & Tabor

Here is a comparison of how Ehrman and Tabor differ (and overlap) regarding Gospel authorship and early Christian texts:

Feature	Ehrman	Tabor
Orientation / Tone	Skeptical, critical, often highlighting uncertainty and textual problems	Imaginative historian, seeking plausible reconstructions, open to tradition but critical
Attitude to Traditional Attribution	Generally skeptical — considers the canonical titles later and possibly pseudepigraphic	More willing to entertain that traditions & community memory could ground attribution, though not uncritically
Use of Patristic / Tradition Evidence	Cautious — sees church fathers as secondary and sometimes unreliable	More readily uses tradition as a data point in reconstructive narratives
Hypotheses about Transmission / Power Dynamics	Focus on how texts evolve, how redaction and variant traditions emerge, how memory is shaped	Pays more attention to how power, community, and family lines may have determined which texts were preserved or emphasized
Speculative Degree	Stays bounded by textual-critical constraints	More likely to explore speculative reconstructions (e.g. leadership of Jesus’ family)
Main Concerns	Textual authenticity, authorial anonymity, redaction, variant readings, possible pseudonymity	Historical shaping of Christian movements, suppressed traditions, how identity and authority impacted text circulation

Although they move in somewhat different scholarly gears, their views are not necessarily contradictory in every respect. They often share caution about overly confident claims of direct apostolic authorship, and both emphasize that the origins of the Gospels are more complex than simple legend or naive assumption.

---

Implications & Broader Takeaways

The debate over who wrote the Gospels is less about proving a single certainty and more about managing probabilities, probabilities constrained by ancient practices, the nature of oral tradition, manuscript evidence, community formation, and theological pressures. Some key broader points:

1. Authenticity vs. Reliability
   Even if we cannot know exactly who wrote a given Gospel, that does not necessarily render it wholly without historical or theological value. Scholars often distinguish between “authorship” and “reliability” of tradition.

2. Memory, Community, and Redaction
   Gospels were likely composed in communities that preserved, shaped, selected, and layered oral traditions, shaped by theological concerns. That process influences what we have.

3. Caution Toward Tradition & Assertion
   Both Ehrman and Tabor (in their different ways) urge humility: ancient texts do not always conform to modern expectations of attribution, and tradition, though valuable, must be critically handled.

4. Role of Innovation in Scholarship
   Tabor’s more speculative reconstructions are a reminder that new hypotheses can challenge orthodox narratives, even if they remain tentative. Scholarship progresses by testing ideas, refining them, and sometimes discarding hypotheses that do not stand up.

---

Conclusion

In the question “Who wrote the Gospels?” Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor furnish two different but complementary lenses. Ehrman leans more toward skepticism about traditional authorship and emphasizes textual uncertainty, the dangers of assuming continuity from early Christian tradition, and the complexity of oral/communicative transmission. Tabor offers a more narrative-historical reconstruction, giving more weight to community memory, power dynamics, suppressed traditions (particularly regarding James and Jesus’s family), and the interplay between text and early Christian identity.

Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor: Who Chose the Books of the New Testament?

Introduction

The New Testament canon — the set of 27 books accepted by most Christian churches — was not handed down in one sealed package. Rather, it developed over time through debate, usage, and judgment about what ought to count as authoritative Christian Scripture. Among scholars who study these issues, Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor are two voices often heard, though they emphasize somewhat different questions and methods. Exploring their perspectives helps us understand what we do know, what remains debated, and why “who decided?” is a more complex question than many assume.

---

Bart Ehrman: Process, Criteria, and Timing

Bart Ehrman is a prolific scholar of the New Testament, Christian origins, and textual criticism. He has written many books and blog posts on how the 27‑book New Testament came to be. Some key points in Ehrman’s view:

1. Gradual Development, Not a Single Council Decision

   • Ehrman emphasizes that the canon did not get decided at Nicea (325 CE) or by Emperor Constantine, contrary to popular myth. baptistpress.com+2Ehrman Blog+2

   • Instead, different Christian communities used different texts; some texts were accepted by many, others only by some. Over time, a consensus emerged. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

2. Athanasius’s Festal Letter (367 CE) as the First Explicit Matching List

   • Ehrman often points to the festal letter of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE, as the first surviving document that lists the exact 27 books of our present New Testament canon — neither more nor fewer. مدونة التاعب+3Ehrman Blog+3baptistpress.com+3

   • However, this did not “close the case” immediately; debates continued for some time. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

3. Criteria Used by Early Christian Leaders

   Ehrman outlines a set of informal criteria by which early Christians judged books:

   • Apostolicity: Was the book connected to an apostle or someone in their circle?

   • Orthodoxy (or consistency with accepted Christian teaching): Did the text conform to what was believed about Christ, resurrection, etc.?

   • Usage / widespread acceptance: Was the text already used in worship and teaching across churches?

   • Antiquity: Older writings had more credibility.

   • Possibly also liturgical use (was the book read in congregations, public reading?) Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

4. Faux Myths and Misconceptions

   Ehrman dispels a number of popular but inaccurate ideas, including:

   • The idea that Constantine or a single council “picked” the books with governmental coercion. baptistpress.com+2Ehrman Blog+2

   • That the canon was immediately fixed once Athanasius or any early church father wrote down a list. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

5. Authenticity / Authorship Questions

   Related but somewhat distinct is Ehrman’s analysis of which books actually were written by the people whose names appear as authors (or attributed authors). In books like Forged, Ehrman argues several New Testament texts are pseudonymous, meaning they are attributed to apostles or apostolic figures but were likely written by others later. Wikipedia+1

6. Continuing Debate in Early Centuries

   Even after Athanasius, there was not universal agreement everywhere immediately. Different regions sometimes had slightly different collections (e.g. some debated books like Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude). Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

---

James D. Tabor: Emphasis and Contributions

James Tabor is a scholar of Christian origins, early Judaism, archaeology, and New Testament studies, with particular interest in how early Christian movements related to Jewish traditions, how theological ideas evolved, and how texts were used. While Tabor does not, as far as I know, offer a radically different timeline for when the 27 books were canonized, he emphasizes some interpretive perspectives and textual issues which affect how one thinks about “who chose” and “how legit is the choice.” Key features of Tabor’s work:

1. Focus on Early Christian Diversity and the Jerusalem Church

   • In Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, Tabor emphasizes tensions between what he sees as the original Jesus movement (centered in Jerusalem, under figures like James, Jesus’ brother) and the later Gentile‑focused Christianity shaped significantly by Paul. PublishersWeekly.com+2Wikipedia+2

   • From this angle, the fact that the New Testament canon is heavily Pauline (i.e. many of the letters are his, and Acts frames a Pauline narrative) is significant; it reflects how Paul's view became more dominant in the early church, across geographic regions.

2. Textual Revision, Embedded Texts, and Apocalyptic Backgrounds

   • Tabor has written about how some New Testament books, especially Revelation, may have had earlier Jewish apocalyptic materials that were Christianized later. For example, his guest‑post “Is the Book of Revelation a Revised Version of a Non‑Christian Apocalypse?” suggests some portions may derive from earlier Jewish apocalyptic texts. Ehrman Blog

   • He also sometimes explores how some canonical texts may preserve earlier texts or traditions that later editors shaped. This underlines that “choosing” the canon was often a process of editing, redaction, and theological shaping.

3. Arriving at Canon in Practice, Not Just Theory

   • Tabor, like Ehrman, acknowledges that usage mattered: what texts were read, circulated, quoted, and taught in communities. The more widely used a writing was, the more likely it would be accepted. (Though he tends to explore more the internal dynamics of early Christian groups, say the Jerusalem Christians vs Pauline groups, which might have had different preferences.)

4. Speculative Reconstructions and Archaeological Context

   • Tabor often uses archaeological findings and his knowledge of Second Temple Judaism to situate early Christianity in its Jewish environment. These contexts help him reconstruct how views about what writings mattered may have shifted — e.g., how Jewish norms of scripture, prophecy, revelation may have influenced early Christians' judgments about texts.

5. Accepting Ehrman’s Basic Timeline, but Emphasizing what “Choice” Means in Practice

   • Tabor does not seriously challenge the idea that Athanasius’ festal letter is a key moment. Though one could say he is less focused on the “official list/closing of the canon” and more on how theological power, community identity, and religious politics shaped which texts gained authority.

---

Where Ehrman and Tabor Overlap, Where They Diverge

It’s helpful to see where their views coincide and where they differ in emphasis.

Topic	Ehrman’s View	Tabor’s View / Emphasis	Notes & Divergence
Timing of a full list of 27	Athanasius (367 CE) is first surviving instance of the full 27 books. Ehrman Blog+1	Likely accepts that as historically significant; not strongly contested. He is more interested in earlier formative stages and how usage & theological conflict made certain books more acceptable.
Role of Councils / Emperors	Councils (like Nicea) did not decide the canon; emperors like Constantine did not directly “choose” the books. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2	Tabor similarly does not give Constantine a central role in the final forming of canon. What interests him more is how communities adopted texts, how leadership (James, Jerusalem church, Paul etc.) influenced usage.
Criteria for inclusion	Apostolicity, orthodoxy (correct belief), usage, antiquity, etc. Also textual authenticity and theological consistency. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2	Agrees on many of these, but gives more weight to community conflict (which texts survived theological controversies), Jewish versus Gentile tensions, apocalyptic background, redaction.
Authorship/authenticity	Many books are pseudonymous; some texts were written by unknown authors but attributed to apostolic names. The issue of forgery (not in crude sense, but pseudepigraphic). Wikipedia+1	Tabor is less specialized on his recent claims of pseudonymity (compared to Ehrman), but does explore textual redaction, embedded traditions, possible earlier non‑Christian sources made Christian. So he is willing to entertain that some textual shaping happened before texts achieved canonical status.
Community and authority	The proto‑orthodox Christian movement (leaders, church fathers) had large influence — what became “orthodox” had power in textual circulation, in teaching, worship. Ehrman often notes that majority usage and the authority of respected leaders mattered.	Tabor more heavily emphasizes early Christian diversity: the existence of multiple Christianities, of competing claims, how the Jerusalem church, Jewish Christians, Paul’s mission each played roles. He is interested in reconstructing perhaps what the original Jesus movement thought, and how Paul’s theological innovations influenced what texts were accepted.

---

Implications: What “Who Chose” Really Means

From the work of Ehrman and Tabor, a few implications emerge about what “who chose” implies in practice:

• It was not a formal “one meeting, vote, emperor presiding” scenario. “Choosing” was spread over generations.

• Many people and communities played roles: local churches, influential leaders, theology teachers, church fathers, liturgy, catechesis, usage in worship.

• Theological concerns (doctrinal consistency, how a text presented Jesus, resurrection, etc.) were central. If a text diverged significantly, it was more likely to be excluded.

• Power and influence mattered: geographical centers (Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem), scholarship and reputation of certain teachers (Irenaeus, Athanasius, etc.) were significant in shaping what texts were considered authoritative.

• The process also involved rejecting some texts: apocryphal gospels, writings outside apostolic connection, or those claiming “secret” teachings or diverging from doctrine.

---

Areas of Disagreement and Open Questions

While Ehrman and Tabor share much scholarly background and agree on many facts, there are still open debates and areas of difference:

• The weight of Paul in the canon: Tabor tends to emphasize Paul’s transformational role and how his letters and missionary activity shaped Christianity, possibly more than Ehrman does in some treatments. This affects views about which books were more influential early on, and hence more likely to be canonized.

• The reality and impact of pseudonymity and forgery: Ehrman’s claims in Forged about certain New Testament books being written under false names are controversial; not all scholars accept or agree on the extent or significance. Tabor does not always support the same level of skepticism about attribution.

• What counts as theological “orthodoxy” early on: Different communities had different beliefs. The process of determining what was orthodox — what was acceptable — shifted over time. Their reconstructions differ in emphasis: Tabor focuses more on Jewish Christian perspectives and early non‑Pauline traditions; Ehrman tends to focus on how the proto‑orthodox tradition came to dominance.

• Text vs. practice: canonical vs non‑canonical texts: Some texts not included in the canon continued to be used in communities or quoted; assessing their usage is tricky. Tabor sometimes focuses on how non‑canonical texts illuminate the earlier Christian diversity; Ehrman also surveys lost scriptures and non‑canonical works.

• Geographical and chronological variation: Which communities accepted which books when differs by region (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor). There’s debate about how synchronized canon acceptance really was.

---

Historical Summary: Key Milestones that Both Acknowledge

Despite differences, Ehrman and Tabor more or less agree on many of the core historical “milestones” in the development of the New Testament canon:

• First Christian writings: Paul’s letters (mid‑first century), some Gospels shortly thereafter.

• Early to mid‑second century: wider circulation of Gospels, Acts, letters; debates begin about which books are good, authentic, reliable. Some church fathers write lists of accepted texts (e.g. Irenaeus lists the four Gospels). Ehrman Blog+1

• Third to fourth centuries: further consolidation. More systematic listing and usage. Church councils (implicitly) reinforce what is commonly used, though not always by formal vote.

• 367 CE: Athanasius’ festal letter listing the 27 books exactly.

• Following decades and centuries: continued standardization (church councils, church fathers, liturgy, translation into Latin etc.).

---

Why It Matters

Understanding how the New Testament books were chosen is not just academic—it has practical and theological significance:

• It affects questions of authority: Why do we accept these 27, and not others? What makes them canonical?

• It shapes how one views the reliability and authenticity of texts: questions about authorship, provenance, editing, doctrinal shaping.

• It helps in understanding Christian diversity: early Christianity was not monolithic; there were many sects, opinions, controversies. The canon reflects which voices prevailed.

• It informs how we interpret canon in modern periods: How have historical processes shaped tradition, doctrine, theology, liturgy?

---

Conclusion

In short: Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor largely agree on much of what can be known about how the New Testament canon was formed: it was a gradual, multi‑century process; community usage, theological acceptability, apostolic connection, and leadership influence all mattered; and the full complement of 27 books was first clearly affirmed by Athanasius in 367 CE, with ongoing standardization after that.

Where their perspectives differ is mainly in emphasis and interpretation: how much weight is given to early Jewish Christian traditions vs Pauline theology, how much skepticism there is about traditional ascriptions of authorship, and how much power geopolitical, ecclesiastical institutions had in shaping which texts prevailed.

Thus, “who chose the books” is not a simple answer: there was no single person or council at one moment, but many hands, many debates, many communities. The story of how each text earned its place is complex, fascinating, and still partly conjectural—but Ehrman’s scholarship helps map the broad outlines, while Tabor’s work supplies more nuanced detail about early Christian diversity, the conflicts of theology, and the archaeological and cultural contexts.

How the New Testament Was Created: Bart Ehrman and James Tabor in Dialogue

The New Testament (NT) as Christians know it today — a bound collection of 27 books — did not arrive fully formed. Its making involved complex historical, theological, social, and textual processes over the first several centuries of Christianity. Two prominent scholars who have written extensively on these issues are Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor. Though both are historians and share some methodologies, they differ in emphases and in certain reconstructions. This article explores their views side by side to help illuminate how modern scholarship thinks about the coming into being of the New Testament.

---

Who They Are & Their Perspectives

• Bart D. Ehrman is a textual critic and historian of early Christianity. He emphasizes manuscripts, textual variants, authorship, forgery, canon formation, and how doctrinal conflicts shaped which texts were preserved. His work is rigorous in assessing internal and external evidence, scribal practices, and how “orthodoxy” defined itself in opposition to “heresy.” Ehrman Blog+3Wikipedia+3The Muslim Times+3

• James D. Tabor is a scholar of Christian Origins and Second-Temple Judaism, with an interest in archaeology, Jewish context, Paul’s letters, and the dynamics among different early Christian groups (Jerusalem Church, Pauline communities, etc.). He often foregrounds how early Christianity had competing strands, how certain voices were marginalized, and how the early political, religious, and family dynamics shaped Christian identity. Academia.edu+2Simon & Schuster+2

---

What Ehrman Says About How the NT Was Created

Here are some of Ehrman’s main claims:

1. Authorship and Pseudepigrapha / Forgery
   Ehrman argues that some NT books attributed to apostles were probably not authored by them — sometimes falsely attributed, or “pseudonymous.” Some works may have been written under the names of apostles to lend authority. In his book Forged, Ehrman suggests that 8‑11 of the 27 books were forgeries in this sense. Wikipedia+2The Muslim Times+2

2. Textual Transmission and Variants
   The original autographs are lost; what we have are manuscripts and copies, many with variants – small and large. Scriveners sometimes made errors; sometimes changes reflected theological motivations. Thus, there are places where textual evidence is uncertain. Ehrman Blog+1

3. Canon Formation is Gradual and Contested
   The collection of the NT was not decided in one council or by one person. It emerged over time. Early Christian communities used many writings; some were widely accepted, others disputed or rejected. Over time, through debates, usage, liturgy, and theological alignment (i.e. “orthodoxy”) certain books came to be regarded as authoritative and others not. Ehrman Blog+2The Muslim Times+2

4. Criteria used by Early Church Fathers / Proto‑Orthodox Christians
   According to Ehrman, criteria included apostolic authorship (or connection to an apostle), antiquity (how early a work was), consistency with the “rule of faith” (i.e. conformity to beliefs held by what became mainstream Christianity), orthodoxy, and usefulness in worship/teaching. Works not satisfying those criteria were less likely to be accepted. Ehrman Blog+1

5. Influence of Doctrinal Conflict
   Ehrman emphasizes that theological controversies — for example between what later came to be considered “orthodox” vs “heresies” or alternative Christianities — played a role. Texts possibly aligned with views that lost in these conflicts had less chance of entering the canon or circulating widely; some lost entirely. The Muslim Times+1

---

What Tabor Says: Emphasis, Revisions, and Alternative Narratives

James Tabor shares some general ground with Ehrman but frames certain issues differently and introduces alternative historical reconstructions. Here are key points of Tabor’s view:

1. Multiple Early Christianity Strands
   Tabor emphasizes that early Christianity was not unified. He portrays a tension between the Jerusalem Church (led by James, brother of Jesus, and other Jewish Christian leaders) and the Pauline mission, which opened up to Gentiles. These different strands had different emphases: ritual observance, law, role of Jewish identity, Christology, etc. Simon & Schuster+2Biblical Archaeology Society+2

2. The Role of Paul in Shaping the Later NT
   Tabor tends to see Paul as foundational in how Christianity became what most Christians later knew. In Paul and Jesus, Tabor argues that Paul’s letters represent one of the earliest forms of Christian belief, and that the later gospels and church structures evolved (or adopted Pauline theological categories), sometimes marginalizing alternative early Christian views. PublishersWeekly.com+1

3. Recovering Lost Voices
   Tabor is interested in how voices from the “lost” side — e.g. the Jerusalem Church, possibly groups like the Ebionites, Jewish Christian communities that retained Jewish identity — contributed to early Christian literature, even if indirectly or in fragments. He often tries to recover what these voices taught by reading Paul’s letters, early Christian Jewish writings, and archaeological evidence. Biblical Archaeology Society+1

4. Textual Evidence & Archaeology
   While Tabor uses textual data, he also heavily leans on archaeological findings, historical context, including political, familial, social dynamics, to reconstruct how early Christian texts may have been used, transmitted, and how certain traditions or interpretations arose. For example, in The Jesus Dynasty he explores ideas about Jesus’ family, messianism, royal expectations, etc. Biblical Archaeology Society+1

5. Less Emphasis On Forgery, More On Rival Traditions
   Unlike Ehrman, while Tabor acknowledges contested authorship and variant traditions, he is less insistent on calling many books outright forgeries. His narrative tends to stress divergence of viewpoints, competition, theological development, rather than emphasizing pseudonymous writing as centrally fraudulent. He tends to see plurality rather than deception. (Though he might accept pseudonymity in some cases, the emphasis is different.) PublishersWeekly.com+2Simon & Schuster+2

---

Agreement, Disagreements, and Comparative Insights

Here are areas where Ehrman and Tabor generally agree, and where their disagreements illuminate deeper questions.

Agreement	Disagreement / Tension
The NT was not created overnight — many documents, debates, usage over time. Canon formation was a long, messy process.	Ehrman tends to view pseudonymity and forgery as more important issues; Tabor focuses more on theological divergence rather than intentional deception.
There is textual variation, uncertain authorship, and some books’ origins are opaque.	Tabor emphasizes recovering lost or marginalized voices (Jerusalem Church, Jewish Christian groups), whereas Ehrman focuses more on how “orthodoxy” won and how texts were shaped by that victory.
Criteria like apostolic connection, antiquity, theological conformity, liturgical usefulness played roles in selecting canonical books.	Assessment of Paul: Tabor gives him a central but also contested role; Ehrman certainly acknowledges Paul’s importance, but is more cautious about attributing everything that Christianity later became to Paul alone.
Early Christianity was pluralistic — different Christologies, practices, beliefs.	On “forgery”: Ehrman calls some books forgeries (in that sense), whereas Tabor is less eager to label so many books that way; instead, he sees differences in perspective and theology across the key texts.

---

Key Examples

To see how these differences play out, here are a few illustrative cases:

• “Forged / pseudonymous books”: Ehrman names specific letters (e.g. some of the Pastoral Epistles like 2 Timothy, Titus, possibly Ephesians, Colossians) as likely not written by the claimed author. Tabor treats disputed authorship more by exploring implications: what it meant for communities to accept or reject texts, rather than merely classifying them as forged. Wikipedia+1

• Paul vs Jerusalem Church: Tabor argues that James and the Jerusalem Church preserved an earlier form of Christianity more closely aligned with Jesus’ teachings and Jewish practice; that Paul introduced reinterpretations (e.g. about law, Gentile inclusion, resurrection). Ehrman also discusses Paul's letters, their early date, their centrality, but tends not to frame things as “original vs later corrupted” in the same dualistic way. Ehrman is more likely to stress that what became “orthodoxy” was itself a process of selection and conflict rather than decline from an original pristine form. PublishersWeekly.com+2The Muslim Times+2

• Canon finalization: Both see that by the late fourth century there was general agreement on the 27 books, but neither believes there was a single defining council whose decision alone sealed the canon. Ehrman points to processes of acceptance, usage in churches, lists by church fathers, etc. Tabor similarly acknowledges these, but puts more weight on how different texts were used by different Christian groups in different places before consensus. Ehrman Blog+1

---

Methodological Issues

Part of their differences comes from methodology:

• Textual Criticism vs Social History / Archaeology: Ehrman’s strength is in manuscript studies, tracing how texts were copied, altered, the evidence of textual variants, deviations, interpolations. Tabor combines that with material culture, social context, and group identity.

• Theological neutrality vs Reconstruction: Ehrman tends to adopt a more critical posture — questioning traditional claims of authorship, the notion of divine inspiration, etc. Tabor, though also critical, often seeks to reconstruct what might have been the beliefs and practices of early believers, including marginalized ones, and sometimes puts forward more speculative but provocative reconstructions (e.g. dynastic messianism, family lines of Jesus, etc.). These speculations are sometimes controversial. Biblical Archaeology Society

• Evidence and Weight: Ehrman is more cautious about making strong historical claims when the evidence is weak; he tends to emphasize what can be known with higher confidence (e.g. earliest manuscripts, quotations, church fathers, dating). Tabor is sometimes more willing to lean on less certain data (archaeological hints, less‑secure traditions) to reconstruct possible alternative trajectories of early Christian history. Some critics think Tabor pushes beyond what the evidence can firmly support. DTS Voice

---

What This Tells Us About Canon‑Formation, Authorship, and Early Christianity

From comparing these two scholarly viewpoints, we can draw several conclusions about the making of the New Testament:

1. Canon is a historical product, not a divine instant proclamation
   The NT canon, as recognized now, emerged through human processes: usage in worship, theological debates, acceptance across communities, distinction between “orthodox” and “heretical” beliefs. It was not formally finalized until centuries after many of the texts were written.

2. Multiple Christianities in early years
   There was no monolithic Christianity in the first century and early second century. Different groups had different emphases on Christ’s divinity, Jewish law, Gentile inclusion, ritual, leadership, etc. What ultimately became orthodoxy reflects one path among many.

3. Authorship is complex
   Many books in the NT are anonymous or pseudepigraphical. Attribution to apostles was sometimes later, sometimes for authority, sometimes mistaken. Questions of who truly wrote what remain in many cases unresolved.

4. Textual integrity … but with caveats
   Although the vast manuscript tradition of the NT is far better attested than many other ancient works, there are many variants among manuscripts. Some are trivial (spelling, word order); some are more serious (whether entire verses were added later). Scholars like Ehrman and Tabor work carefully, highlighting where certainty is strong, where speculation is needed.

5. The voice of the marginalized matters
   Tabor’s work especially reminds us that the voices of early-Christian groups that did not dominate theology later still shaped what was written, what was preserved, and what was rejected. Even when such groups are “silent” in the final canon, traces remain.

---

Criticisms & Limitations

• Some scholars criticize Tabor for speculating beyond the firm evidence, for treating certain hypotheses (e.g. dynastic aspects of Jesus’ family, certain tomb claims) as more historically plausible than the evidence supports. DTS Voice

• Ehrman is sometimes criticized by more conservative or confessional scholars for being too skeptical, for viewing “orthodoxy” as simply the winner in theological battles, or for suggesting forgery / pseudonymity more broadly than some think is warranted.

• In both cases, there is an inherent difficulty in the historical method: the sources are partial, sometimes late, often theological in intent rather than purely historical, and illuminated only by indirect evidence. This means that many reconstructions are probabilistic, not definitive.

---

Conclusion

Bart Ehrman and James Tabor offer complementary – and at times contrasting – lenses on how the New Testament was created. Ehrman emphasizes authorship, textual transmission, the role of doctrinal struggles, and how texts were accepted or rejected through criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, usage. Tabor highlights the plurality of early Christian voices, Jewish contexts, how marginalized groups and alternative traditions shaped early Christianity, and how the shaping of Christian theology (especially through Paul) influenced which texts gained prominence.

Understanding their dialogue shows that what we call “the New Testament” is the result of a rich and messy human process: writing, rewriting, copying, debating, rejecting, preserving. It was never inevitable that the NT would look the way it does today. Insights from both scholars help us appreciate both the power and the limitations of the documentary evidence, and how faith, theological concerns, power, identity, and politics all played roles alongside simple history.