Bart Ehrman: Former Fundamentalist, Now Agnostic

[Crumpy]

Bart Ehrman is a professor of biblical studies at U of N Carolina, Chapel Hill. He was raised to be a fundamentalist and graduated from the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

Later studies, he said on CSPAN this morning 11/24/06, showed him that the bible is a human book, has many points of views of the respective authors, and, to him, is far from inerrant, as evidenced by many varying renditions of the ancient texts.

What apparently pushed him over the edge, were things like this: 1) OT translations were based on a single surviving copy of the OT in greek. But, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed up variants to the supposed inerrant texts; this shows, to him, that the texts are very errant and not so reliable as divine sources. 2) His observation that the inspired texts were intentionally altered many times, to produce the many variants of the NT, for example, but the OT as well. 3) He notes that the King James Version was very studiously produced from scrolls available at the time, but that older and thus more reliable versions have since been found which vary from those used in the KJV. 4) He says, particularly, that his studies of suffering in the OT show that where it is discussed it is treated in various ways that he finds inconsistent not only with each other, but with his previous belief in a merciful and all-kind God.

Ehrman is the author of a series of books on scripture. He sees no conflict in maintaining an income from the writings he dismisses.

 

[Della]

Poor Professor Ehrman’s dilemma puts me in mind of a line from J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings.” Gandalf reminds Saruman that, “He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

Biblical scholarship isn’t about lining up all the texts to see if there are no discrepancies between translations, but to mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth. It’s sad that the professor has forgotten that or is unaware of the fact.

 

[Exalt]

Poor Professor Ehrman’s dilemma puts me in mind of a line from J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings.” Gandalf reminds Saruman that, “He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

Biblical scholarship isn’t about lining up all the texts to see if there are no discrepancies between translations, but to mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth. It’s sad that the professor has forgotten that or is unaware of the fact.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would dismiss him so callously. His studies and scholarship is aboslutely superb. If you’ve read his works, you’d know that. He’s probably the most honest Biblical scholar I’ve ever read.

Biblical scholarship is indeed all about the text, the meaning, the language, the historical context - all of which are taken into account in Ehrman’s research.

Ehrman has a great number of extremely valid objections to the idea that the Bible is the “Word of God.” If it really was the Word of God, would it suffer from the problems Ehrman talks about? Besides, why should one believe that it is, in fact, the Word of God, to begin with? The evidence seems very much in favor of Ehrman’s position.

 

[Janet_S]

I never heard of Bart Ehrman, but I am sorry he lost his faith. It is important to keep in mind that this could happen to any of us if we neglect our prayer life and fail to take up our cross and follow Christ daily. We live in a very skeptical world, and it takes a lot of effort to go against the flow.

 

[Epistemes]

I’m very familiar with Dr. Ehrman, as I have purchased his copy of *Lost Scriptures *(so that I could have easy access to many of the apocryphal NT texts) but have also read his latest book *Misquoting Jesus *while sitting in Barnes & Noble (it’s quite short, especially for anyone who is familiar with many of the redundant arguments used against the NT).

I attended UNC-Greenbsoro, the sister school of UNC-Chapel Hill, and one of my close professors, Dr. Derek Krueger, was good friends with Dr. Bart Ehrman. Dr. Derek Krueger’s position is quite unique: He is a Conservative Jew who has studied early Christianity up through Byzantium all of his life. The odd thing is, is that Dr. Krueger’s mission, as he said himself, was to teach Christians why they don’t want to be fundamentalist while maintaining a certain respect for the religious tradition of Christianity. Dr. Ehrman, who was raised Christian, seems as if he’s trying to discredit Christianity altogether.

 

[Digitonomy]

Ehrman is the author of a series of books on scripture. He sees no conflict in maintaining an income from the writings he dismisses.

I see no conflict either. If I were an expert on Mormon scripture, and fell away from that church, I certainly wouldn’t feel conflicted about using my God-given talents and expertise in the area to further study and publish on the topic.

I completely agree with Della.

 

[Cristiano]

I am sorry to hear about it. I have several DVD classes that he prepared for the teaching company. I really like his work even if I do not agree with him on quite a few theological aspects. He is a great teacher and makes you think. I guess that he lost view of the bigger picture.

 

[PhilVaz]

Ehrman vs. Craig on the resurrection

Craig wins and Ehrman does not want this published. So of course I put the HTML on my site.

Phil P

 

[mmortal03]

Biblical scholarship isn’t about lining up all the texts to see if there are no discrepancies between translations, but to mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth. It’s sad that the professor has forgotten that or is unaware of the fact.

1. He says, particularly, that his studies of suffering in the OT show that where it is discussed it is treated in various ways that he finds inconsistent not only with each other, but with his previous belief in a merciful and all-kind God.

Playing devils advocate here, but if there are these major inconsistencies in the Bible (not just minor ones) on topics like this one regarding morals, how are we to “mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth”? We argue against the process of “picking and choosing” by stating that our goal is to try to properly understand the different styles and purposes for the different books, however, if there are clear moral contradictions involved, is the only rectification that “we can never fully understand God’s reasons”? That sounds like a cop out, as the Bible was written in the words of humans, so it should be quite understandable to us when properly analyzed.

 

[sauce]

Playing devils advocate here, but if there are these major inconsistencies in the Bible (not just minor ones) on topics like this one regarding morals, how are we to “mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth”? We argue against the process of “picking and choosing” by stating that our goal is to try to properly understand the different styles and purposes for the different books, however, if there are clear moral contradictions involved, is the only rectification that “we can never fully understand God’s reasons”? That sounds like a cop out, as the Bible was written in the words of humans, so it should be quite understandable to us when properly analyzed.

What about faith seeking understanding? Also, my experience as regards moral contradictions is that “Life is Messy.” Reminds me of King David being known as a “bloody” man, yet the OT tells us that he was a man after God’s own heart. That sounds strange for a loving God of the ten commandments.

Just a thought. Would love to hear from you.

By the way, Bart Ehrman’s courses are sold by THE TEACHING COMPANY.
I’ve always resisted buying them because I knew something was fishy about him.
I felt there was a vacuum there.

 

[Cruciform]

Some related materials:
Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (InterVarsity Press, 2007); ISBN 978-0-8308-3447-1

Nicholas Perrin, Lost In Transmission? What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Thomas Nelson, 2007); ISBN 978-0-8499-0367-0

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[annem]

mmortal03

Playing devils advocate here, but if there are these major inconsistencies in the Bible (not just minor ones) on topics like this one regarding morals, how are we to “mine the gold of its wisdom and spiritual truth”?.. if there are clear moral contradictions involved, is the only rectification that “we can never fully understand God’s reasons”? .

I have read a number of Erhman’s books and I am very disturbed by the way he distorts the truth. For example, in his books on the Gnostics and early Christianity, he avoids the topic of dating–and there were no Gnostics around for the first hundred years or so after Christ’s death–but keeps suggesting that Thomas and other Gnostic gospels are somehow the equal of the Christian gospels.

I don’t know exactly which book you are talking about here, mmmortalo3, but if it is 'Misquoting Jesus", then, once again, I believe Erhman has deliberately shaded the truth, and I am being as kind as I can here. Every single ‘flaw’ in the bible Erhman talks about has been known for centuries and was available for study for anybody with a biblical commentary. He found nothing new. Nor even anything important.

If you are referring to Erhman’s complaint in ‘Misquoting Jesus" about when Jesus gets angry (I don’t recall the exact quotation, since I read the book some time ago) but the vast majority of textual biblical scholars 1) disagree with Erhman’s translation and 2) also disagree that, even if Erhman’s translation is correct, there is any reason to think that it refers to Jesus’ suffering on the cross.

However, if you are referring to something Erhman said in his book on suffering, or an even later book, could you recall anything clearer about the passage?

May God shower you in miracles, Annem

 

[Siddhartha]

Bart Ehrman is a professor of biblical studies at U of N Carolina, Chapel Hill. He was raised to be a fundamentalist and graduated from the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.
…
Ehrman is the author of a series of books on scripture. He sees no conflict in maintaining an income from the writings he dismisses.

Belief in Protestant fundamentalism naturally might lead to atheism, because the Bible was not meant to be read in isolation from Christian Tradition. Ehrman’s agnosticism is pretty predictable given his background.

 

[Another_Mary]

Thanks for this discussion!

I have been using some of the Teaching Company courses–not on religion–and saw Ehrman’s name as lecturer. I think I read something of his in the past but couldn’t remember. I had a questioning feeling about him,confirmed by what is being discussed.

I won’t buy his Teaching Company courses but I might check out his books from the library just to see what’s up with him.